LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. 5

 

Hulton, Mrs. Barnfield, Weston, Southampton.

Jackson, Alfred, The Wilderness, West End, Southampton.

Jellicoe, C. W. A., 7 Portland Terrace, Southampton.

Johnson, H., Oakmere, Avenue Road, Southampton.

Johnson, J., Oakmere, Avenue Road, Southampton.

Johnson, W., 31 Avenue, Southampton.

Jolliffe, Colonel J. H., West Street, Fareham.

Kebbel, Rev. C. D., M.A., St. James’s Vicarage, Southampton.

Kellaway, J., 21 St. Andrew’s Road, Southampton.

Kellaway, W., 23 St. Andrew’s Road, Southampton.

Keller, Francis, German Consul, Southampton. (Large paper.)

Kenny, W. C., 30 East Park Terrace, Southampton.

King, Rev. A. S., Brunel Cottage, Avenue Road, Southampton.

Knight, Arthur J., Hazeldene, Archer’s Road, Southampton.

Lake, Dr. G, A. W., 13 East Park Terrace, Southampton.

Lamb, Andrew, J.P., St. Andrew’s Villa, Southampton (deceased).

Lankester, W. G., Bassett Lodge, Bassett, Southampton.

Larbalestier, Mrs., 17 Waterloo Place, Southampton.

Larbalestier, W. T., High Street, Southampton.

Lashmore, H., “ Hants Independent ” Office, Southampton.

Leathes, F. de M., 17 Tavistock Place, W.C. (Large paper.)

Lee, Rev. John Morley, M.A., Hon. Canon of Winchester, Botley Rectory,
Hants.

Lees, R. W., 3 Lower Moira Place, Southampton.

Lemon, James, C.E., Lansdowne House, Southampton.

Lewis, David, M.A., Arundel.

The Library of the Corporation of London, Guildhall, E.C. (W. H. Overall,
Librarian).

Liverpool Free Public Library (P. Cowell, Librarian).

Long, W. H., High Street, Portsmouth. (2 copies, /arge paper.)

Longmore, Surgeon-General Thomas, C.B., Woolston, Southampton.

Loughborough, J. N., Ravenswood, Shirley Road, Southampton.

Lowther, Rev. W. B., Holmfirth, Huddersfield.

Lycett, George, 3 Trinity Road, Southampton.

McCalmont, Mrs. E. G., Highfield, Southampton. (2 copies.)

M‘Kie, James, 23 Hanover Buildings, Southampton.

M‘Lachlan, J., Surgeon-Dentist, 14 Anglesea Place, Southampton.

Macnaghten, Steuart, Bitterne Manor House, Southampton. (Large paper.)

Manchester House Library, East Street, Southampton. (Large paper.)

Marett, C., West Quay, Southampton.

Martin, J. H., 38 Bernard Street, Southampton. ‘

Martin, Rear-Admiral Thomas H. M., Tryermayne, Bitterne, Southampton.
6 LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS.

 

Methven, James, Woolston College, Southampton.

Miell, Thomas, jun., Southampton.

Miller, A. J., 18 High Street, Southampton.

Minns, Rev. G. W., LL.B., Weston, nr. Southampton.
Mitchell, G. H., Hollyville, Avenue Road, Southampton.
Mitchell, W. H., 8 Portland Street, Southampton.

Mitchell, W. E., Kneller Cottage, Oxford Road, Southampton.
Moberly, W. H., 10 Portland Terrace, Southampton.

Moens, W. J. C., Tweed, Lymington.

Mollet, Thomas, St. John Street, Southampton.

Mondey, Alfred, 106 High Street, Southampton.

Money, W., F.S.A., Herborough House, Newbury.

Moody, Samuel Hogarth, Hambledon, Hants.

Moore, Mrs., Forest House, Church Road, Southampton.
Morison, John, 11 Burnbank Gardens, Glasgow.

Morris, G. T. Windyer, 3 Bevois Terrace, Portswood, Southampton.
Morris, R. W., The Elms, Polygon, Southampton.
Mount-Temple, Right Hon. Lord, Broadlands, Romsey.
Murnaghan, A. W., 1 Rochdale Terrace, Beyois Mount, Southampton.
Murray, F. E., Southampton. (Large paper.)

Murray, G. F., Spear Villa, Bevois Mount, Southampton.
Murray, Richard, 120 St. Mary’s Road, Southampton.

Murray, S. M., Newcastle-upon-Tyne. (Large pager.)

Neale, H. L., Steeple Aston, Oxford. (Large paper.)

Nicholas R., Payne’s Road, Freemantle, Southampton.
Nicholls, D., 28 Princes Square, Kennington Park Road, S.E.
Nichols, Jonas, Nichols Town, Southampton.

Nobbs, W., Wyberton House, Bugle Street, Southampton.
Oake, Leonard M., Bargate Street, Southampton.

Oke, R. R., Cumberland Place, Southampton.

Orger, Rev. E. R., Hougham Vicarage, Dover.

Orsborn, J., M.D., F.R.C.S., late of Bitterne, nr. Southampton.
Osborn, H., M.R.C. Phys. Lond., 2 Anglesea Place, Southampton.
Owen, Rev. C. M., M.A., St. George’s, Edgbaston, Birmingham.
Palmer, J. T., Ordnance Office, Southampton. (Large paper.)
Paris, A., 3 Westwood Park, Southampton.

Paris, R., Sopley, Christchurch.

Parker, George, The Vasery, St. Mark’s Road, Southampton.
Parlane, James, Rusholme, Manchester.

Passenger, G. M., 42 Above Bar, Southampton.

Patstone, J., 25 High Street, Southampton, (Large paper.)
Payne, Henry M., Shirley, Southampton.
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. 7

 

Pearce, A. W., Wood Lawn, Portswood, Southampton.

Pearce, J. Seward, 31 Above Bar, Southampton.

Pearce, R. S., Municipal Offices, Southampton.

Peirce, W. A., Oak Bank House, Woolston, Southampton.

Pellow, W. Trehane, L. D.S.,°5 High Street, Southampton. (Large paper.)
Penny, G., 101’ St. Mary’s Road, Southampton.

Perkins, Sir Frederick, Southampton.

Permain, G. A., 45 Above Bar, Southampton.

Perrin, Rev. W. W., M.A., St. Luke’s, Southampton.

Phillips, C. J., Bugle Hall, Southampton.

Pitt, J. J., Portswood Lawn, Southampton.

Pointer, Giles Henry, Highfield, Winchester.

Pollard, J., Kenwyn Street, Truro. (2 copies, darge paper.)

Portal, Melville, Laverstoke House, Micheldever. (Large paper.)
Priaulx, Miss, Erica Villa, Shirley, Southampton.

Quaritch, Bernard, 15 Piccadilly, W. (Large paper.)

Rainier, Captain P., R.N., Erica Villa, Shirley, Southampton.

Ramsey, R., Langside House, Glasgow. (Large paper.)

Randall, H. W., Myrtle Cottage, Alma Road, Woolston, Southampton.
Randall, W. B., 146 High Street, Southampton.

Rayner, H. Glover, 180 High Street, Southampton. (2 copies.)
Read, C. J., St. Thomas Square, Salisbury.

Reed, Mrs., 4 Rockstone Place, Southampton.

Reeves & Turner, Messrs., 196 Strand, W.C. (2 copies, /arge paper.)
Richardson, W. H., Chessell, Bitterne.

Ridoutt, F., Mile End, Portsmouth.

Ritchie, Alexander, Melville House, Hound, Southampton.

Robertson, George, 17 Warwick Square, E.C.

Rodger, Rev. Wesley A., West View, Obelisk Road, Woolston, Southampton.
Roe, Josiah, Mount Beulah, Shirley Park, Southampton. (Large paper.)
Rogers, C., Abbotsbury House West, St. Denys’s, Southampton. (2 copies.)
Rogers, W. H., J.P., Red Lodge, Bassett, Southampton. (2 copies.)
Roofe, W. A., Craven Cottage, Merton Road, Wandsworth, S.W.
Rosoman, R. R. L., Highlands, Itchen Ferry, nr. Southampton.
Ruffell, J. H., 4 West Marland Terrace, Southampton.

Rushin, W., 7 Queen’s Terrace, Southampton.

Sampson, J. K., Abotsfield, Shirley, Southampton.

Sanders, W. Basevi, 2 Brunswick Place, Southampton.

Sandon, E., 34 Onslow Road, Southampton.

Sapp, Arkas, J.P., F.S.A., Basingstoke.

Scott, C. N., 14 Rue Royale, Paris.

Shapcott, Miss, Southampton. (2 copies.)
8 LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS.

 

Sharland, W., High Street, Southampton (deceased).

Sibley, William, Hythe, Southampton.

Silver, Rev. E., M.A., Highfield Parsonage, Southampton.

Skelton, A. H., 2 Portland Street, Southampton.

Smith, A. Russell, 36 Soho Square, London.

Smith, C. Crowther, Anglesea House, Shirley, Southampton.

Smith, J. R., Hill Lane, Southampton.

Smith, W. J., Brighton. (2 copies.) ;

Sotheran & Co., Messrs., 136 Strand, London. (2 copies, /arge paper.)

Southampton Book Society, 178 High Street. (1 large paper, 7 small.)

Spearing, James, 53 Above Bar, Southampton.

Spranger, W. F. G., Winsor House, Southampton.

Spurr, Henry, 24 East Park Terrace, Southampton.

Stanesby, J. T., 3 Kingsdown Villas, Wandsworth, S.W.

Steward, Rev. C. E., M.A., Polygon, Southampton.

Stone, Mrs., The Old Parsonage House, Itchen Ferry, Southampton.

Sutton, Charles S., 7 Manchester Street, Southampton.

Swayne, Henry J. F., The Island, Wilton.

Swayne, W. C., 1 Bridgefield, West Marlands, Southampton.

Symes, R., M.R.C.S., Lauriston, The Lawn, Bevois Hill, Southampton.

Symonds, Mrs., Belgrave Place, Church Street, Shirley, Southampton.

Thomas, J. Blount, J.P., High Street, Southampton.

Thorn, Henry George, Onslow House, Newtown, Southampton.

Tracy, W. G., 37 Above Bar, Southampton.

Trend, Theophilus W., M.D., M.R.C.P. Edin., Raeberry Lodge, South-
ampton.

Trimmer, W. J., 14 Princes Street, Chapel, Southampton.

Trippe, F. J., 1 High Street, Southampton.

Tribner & Co., Messrs., 57 & 59 Ludgate Hill, E.C. (1 large paper, 2 small.)

Turner, F. Beresford, Bassett, Southampton.

Turner, G. S., 9 Carlton Crescent, Southampton.

Urquhart, Rev. R., Scotland.

Vincent, H., ro Brunswick Place, Southampton.

Vincent, H. D., High Street, Oxford. (Large paper.)

Walford, C., 86 Belsize Park Gardens, N.W.

Walpole, C., C.B., Broadford, Chobham, Surrey.

Ward, W., Cleveland Cottage, Hill Lane, Southampton.

Watts, G., Mill Hill, Cowes, Isle of Wight.

West, Mrs. Frederick, Newlands Manor, Lymington.

Westlake, E., Silvermere, Woolston, Southampton.

Westlake, R., The Firs, Portswood, Southampton.

Westlake, W. C., Grosvenor House, Southampton.
LIST OF SUBSCRIBERS. 9

 

Weston, J. R., 18 Cranbury Place, Southampton.

Whitchurch, John, Senior Bailiff, T.C., Lulwortn, Avenue, Southampton.
White, Rev. G. C., M.A., St. Paul’s Vicarage, Southampton.
Whitelegge, Rev. W., M.A., Dean of Residence, Queen’s College, Cork.
Whitlock, Rev. J. A., M.A., 2 Prospect Place, Southampton.

Widger, George, Britannia Wharf, Southampton.

Williams, F., Adelaide Road, St. Denys’s, Southampton.

Williams, Rev. Nelson, B.A., Sarisbury, nr. Southampton.
Williams-Freeman, Mrs. Frederick, Upton Cottage, Bursledon.

Wilson, G. F., 116 East Street, Southampton.

Wilson, Rev. S., M.A., Preston Candover.

Wilson, W., Hyde Hill, Berwick-on-Tweed.

Wingrove, R., 3 East Park Terrace, Southampton.

Wollerson, E., 20 Bridge Street, Southampton.

Wright, R. J., Mayfield, Weston, Southampton. (Large paper.)
A HISTORY

SOUTHAMPTON.
A HISTORY

OF

SOUTHAMPTON.

PARTLY FROM THE MS. OF DR. SPEED, IN THE
SOUTHAMPTON ARCHIVES.

BY THE

Rew jf. SILVESTER DAVIES, May FSA

VICAR OF ST, JAMES’S, ENFIELD HIGHWAY.

SOUTHAMPTON:
GILBERT & CO., 26 ABOVE BAR.

LONDON:
HAMILTON, ADAMS, & CO., 32 PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.

1883.
Ballantyne ress
BALLANTYNE, HANSON AND CO,
EDINBURGH AND LONDON
TO THE WORSHIPFUL

THE MAYOR AND THE CORPORATION

OF

Che Con and County of the Cown of Southampton,

AND TO

ALL WHO HAVE FORWARDED THE PUBLICATION OF THIS
WORK, AND HAVE AWAITED ITS PRODUCTION WITH A
KINDNESS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TRESPASSED

UPON WITHOUT CAUSE,

This Volume

IS INSCRIBED.

October 1883.
PRE PACE.

Durinc a residence of several years in the immediate
neighbourhood of Southampton free access to the Town
Records was given me by the courtesy of the town authorities,
of which J availed myself as opportunities offered ; and towards
the close of 1877 it was suggested by the present publishers
that I should undertake a history of the town, or at least,
on obtaining permission, should edit the MS. of Dr. Speed's
History among the Southampton Archives, continuing the
work, and adding such matter as should bring it into conformity
with present knowledge. I accepted the latter proposal as
the less ambitious task, collated Speed’s documents with
the originals in view of publishing the texts, but soon found
that I could construct no history by a reproduction of Dr.
Speed’s work without going to a length beyond all warrant,
though much had to be cut out as inadequate or faulty.
Under these circumstances I felt myself driven to greater
freedom, and in the following pages I have produced
substantially a new history, while all that is valuable in
Dr. Speed’s work has been preserved, either in his own
words, within quotation marks, or condensed and acknow-
ledged in the notes.

Dr. Speed’s general plan has been adopted. The contents
of his work are as follows :—(1.) The Name. (2.) Antiquity
of Town. (3.) Situation of the Town. (4.) Liberties. (5.)
Fortifications. (6.) Conduits and Waterworks. (7.) Quays.
(8.) Market-house and Market. (9.) Pavement. (10), Char-
viii PREFACE.

 

ters. (11.) Articles and observations which could not be
inserted in their proper places without interrupting the
course of the charters:—Of the Mayor, Recorder, Town-
Clerk, Burgesses, Honorary Burgesses. Concerning offices :
Bailiff, Sheriff, Constable, Steward, Discreets of Market,
Alderman of Portswood, Sergeants, Porters, Bearers. The
Staple, Exemption from Prisage, Admiralty, Petty Customs,
Revenues of the Corporation, Charities, Almshouses, the
Free School, the Town Seal, the Common, Members of
Parliament, Fairs, Present State of Corporation, the Stewes,
Style of the Corporation. (12.) The Churches. (13.) Trade
of the Town. (14.) Mention of Southampton in our His-
tories, Bevis. (15.) Religious Houses: St. Denys, Chantry
of St. Mary’s, Hospital of St. Julian or God’s House, Friars
Minor, Hospital of St. Mary Magdalene for Lepers, Chapel,
Chantries. (16.) Clausentum.

Appendix A. Expenses of Law-day (14 Hen. VII.) B.
Compromise with Portsmouth (24 Hen. III.). C. Pedley’s
Waterworks. D. Dispute with New Sarum (2 Ed. JII.).
E. Dispute with Justices of the County (31 Hen. VI.) F.
Expulsion of James Caplen, &c., from the Corporation, 1662.
G, Agreement of Inhabitants to repair Banks at Saltmarsh,
1503. H. Order of Council (Lecture at Holy Rood), 1653.
I. Holmage’s Obit (14 Hen. VII.). K. List of Mayors.  L.
Laws of Guild. M. Form of Judgment in Quo Warranto
against the Town (11 Car. I.). N. Act of Parliament about
Prisage (22 Hen. VIII.), 1531. O. Release of Abbey
Prisage (6 Jas. I.), 1609. P. Act of Parliament, foreign
bought and sold (4 Jas. I.), 1606. Q. Sweet wine grant.
R. Second sweet wine grant. S, Patent determining Malaga
wines to be sweet wines, &c. Charter (16 Car. I.), 1640.
Book of Rates and Rolls. Index.

This Table should be compared with that of the present
volume, and any reference to articles in common will show,
from the method of printing or from the notes, how far I
PREFACE. iX

 

have reproduced, and in what particulars I have excluded,
Dr. Speed’s work. The facilities given at the present day
for consulting original records, and the constant publication
of such, make it imperative that our town histories, of
however small pretension, shall be to a great extent works
of original research.

Dr. Speed was the fourth in direct descent from John
Speed the chronologer, who died July 28, 1629. John
Speed, M.D., the anatomist, son of the chronologer, died in
May 1640, at the early age of forty-five, leaving behind him
an anatomical work, Sxereros TWodv«ivntos, which exists in
duplicate, one copy being in the possession of St. John’s
College, Oxford. His son, John ,Speed, M.D., was the
author of “Batt upon Batt,” and of various other pieces
which have never seen the light; among them a Latin
poem on his old enemy, which he entitles, ‘ Batteidos: Battus
in Battum, Clericum Parochialem, Fabrum Cultrarium, et
Poetam South Antoniensem.’ He was educated at Mer-
chant Taylors’ School and St. John’s College, Oxford, and
was ejected from his fellowship, when B.A., by the parlia-
mentary visitors, October 17, 1648, after which he lived with
his friend, Mr. Knollys, Grove Place, Nursling, near South-
ampton, till the Restoration, when he was reinstated in his
fellowship, and graduated M.A. 1660, B. and M.D. 1666;
he had been admitted burgess of Southampton January 20,
1658-59. In 1667 he settled in the town, and practised over
an extended district. Humphrey Prideaux (Letters, pp. 32,
35), writing from Oxford in 1675, speaks of him, nevertheless,
as a sad toper. He tells us that on one occasion Speed
had remained in the city solely for the purpose of encounter-
ing Van Tromp, the ‘drunkeing greazy Dutchman,’ who,
after a bout of many hours, fell vanquished before Speed’s
greater capacity for wine and brandy. He married firstly
in 1667 the widow of Rev. William Bernard (see p. 407), who
dying February 1677-78, he married, in 1680, Philadelphia,
x PREFACE.

 

daughter of Thomas Knollys, Esq. of Grove Place. He
became patron of the benefice of Eling, presenting Mr, Pin-
horne (pp. 313, 401) in 1689. He was twice mayor (pp. 179,
180); died September 21, 1711, in his eighty-fifth year, and
was buried at Holy Rood.

John Speed, M.D., eldest son of the last, was educated
at Winchester and New College; B.C.L. October 1697, M.D.
1709. He settled at Southampton in his father’s lifetime,
marrying at Jesus Chapel, Peartree Green, January 19,
1701-1702, Anne, daughter of James Crosse, merchant, of
Southampton. He was a zealous adherent of the Stewarts,
and, as his son says of him, ‘a man of excellent parts, and
a most desirable companion over a bottle.’ This latter circum-
stance, however, was found to diminish his practice, in which,
otherwise, he had good success. He died 28th October
1747, aged seventy-seven, and was buried at Holy Rood,
where memorials exist to his father and himself.

John Speed, M.D., the historian of Southampton, and
son of the last, was born September 9, 1703, educated at
Merchant Taylors’ and St. John’s, Oxford, being elected
fellow, June 11,1722. He proceeded M.A., March 21, 1729;
B.M., December 7, 1732; M.D., July 11,1740. He settled in
the town during his father’s life, and married after September 2,
1741, Anna Maria Crosse, his first cousin, daughter of James
Crosse, Esq., barrister-at-law, and recorder of Winchester.
In August 1732 the honour of burgess-ship was offered to
him and to his brother Samuel, but declined by both: the
compliment being subsequently renewed to Dr. Speed and
accepted, he was elected November 10, 1752, and sworn
in March 19, 1754. Dr. Speed at first resided, as his father
had before him, in ‘the great house’ (p. 355) next to Holy
Rood Church, but on November 8, 1751, he obtained from
the Corporation license to alienate his lease to Mr. John
Monckton, surgeon; he is then said to have lived at No. 1
High Street, but certainly afterwards in his own house in St.
PREFACE. XI

 

Lawrence’s parish, where he died March 8, and was buried
at Holy Rood, March 15, 1781.

Dr. Speed had a large practice; but found time to be
a constant writer. His largest work is a portentous folio
of 830 pages, containing about 73,416 lines, with numerous
notes, entitled ‘Burnettus Restitutus, or Bp. Burnett’s
History, in Burlesque Verse, by Ferdinand MacPherson of
that Ilk:’ it is a marvellous work, not without its merits.
Among his performances are medical, historical, and theo-
logical tracts, sonnets, &c. Some of his satirical pieces on
the local government of Southampton should be mentioned.
Dr. Speed was much averse to the local Acts (see pp.
117, 120) for lighting and paving the town, and spared no
pains in exposing the authors of the schemes, and ridicul-
ing the Corporation for surrendering their rights. In his
‘Curious Account of a Nondescript Species of Negroes’
he attacks the lighting scheme, and describes the manners
of the town—the ‘nocturnal rites, that is, the balls, the
dresses of the ladies, particularly the head-dresses; these
latter are said to be frequently so complicated that they ‘go
untouch’d for months together,’ and are swarming with vermin.
Another piece, ‘An Account of the Ancient Town of Gotham,
and of some Transactions of the so-famous Wise Men there,’
lashes the Corporation and the original promoters of the
paving scheme, his characters evidently portraying the
leaders in town politics.

But it is time to turn to Dr. Speed’s History of South-
ampton. It is a small folio written in a printing hand, as
was very common with him, the letters having been retouched
with a pen the second time, probably towards the close of the
author’s life. The work is itself an expansion or second
edition of one presented by him to the Corporation in
February 1759, entitled ‘ The Charter of the Town of South-
ampton (16 Car. I.) in Latin and English, with remarks from
the Journals.’ This book was ordered November 30, 1810,
Xl PREFACE.

 

to be fair copied, and it was handed in on April 9, 1813.
The Corporation possess this volume; it is well written, but
abounds in errors of transcription. The original appears to
be lost.

The ‘ History of Southampton,’ at the death of Dr. Speed
in March 1781, passed with his other books and papers into
the hands of his son, John Mylles Speed, Rector of Eling,
who married, September 12, 1782, Harriot, daughter of Rev.
Owen Davies, M.A., Rector of Exton and Curate of St.
Mary’s. On the death of Mr. Speed, October 8, 1792, his
books* and other properties passed to his widow, who, on
December 11, 1793, was married to John Silvester, Esq.
(created a Baronet in 1814); thus the custody of the volume
fell to Mr. Silvester, and on February 28, 1794, he presented
it, through Mr. Ballard, to the Corporation of Southampton.
The gift was acknowledged on March 28, and on April 4th
Mr. Silvester received the honour of burgess-ship.

The book has been always valued by the Corporation,
and has been constantly used. It had been prepared under
difficulties from the want of arrangement in the Corporation
documents; an inconvenience which has attended myself
from no fault of the present custodians ; happily the documents
are now being arranged by a competent hand under the
Historical MSS. Commission.

I have little to add concerning the following work, which,
as explained above, may be said to be based on that of Dr,
Speed. It presents for the first time much material which
has not been worked up before. At the same time I am
conscious of its defects, and its omission of some branches of

 

1 Among these, in addition to the books and papers mentioned above, were
a MS. by the Chronologer, and a fifteenth century Chronicle, a version of the
Brute, with unique additions, which had been used by Speed, and previously by
Stowe, The latter portion of this MS. was edited by me for the Camden Society,
under the title of ‘An English Chronicle of the Reigns of Richard II., Henry IV.,
Henry V., and Henry VI.’
PREFACE. Xiil

 

inquiry which might reasonably be expected in a larger book ;
but as some extenuation of the latter point I may urge that
the volume has already exceeded the space proposed.

No uniform method of spelling the names of persons
and places has been adopted; they appear as they are
found in the various contemporary documents ; any difficulty
in identification will probably be removed by consulting the
Index.

Southampton is rapidly increasing, and one effort of its
inhabitants must be to preserve its ancient monuments in
these days of movement and prosperity. The study of
archeology is growing, and towns will be valued and sought,
among other things, for their associations with the past and
the teaching power of their remains. No plea is offered here
for ‘restoration’ in the too common acceptance of the term,
but for intelligent and scrupulous preservation, even at
apparent sacrifice, of every portion of what is historical.
Southampton possesses remains some of which are believed
to be unique; every fragment of the western walls should be
rigidly guarded. A period of danger is possibly approaching ;
and should mischief happen, the time of regret will most
certainly occur when reparation will be impossible.

I have to thank the Town Council for their permission to
use Dr. Speed’s MS., and the Town-Clerk, R. S. Pearce, Esq.,
for his unvaried courtesy and ready assistance in the midst of
labours which appear unceasing; I have also received most
willing attention in the office. My thanks are also due to
Charles Wooldridge, Esq., Registrar of the Diocese for Hants,
for kind accommodation and facility afforded me while ex-
amining the Episcopal Registers; to J. B. Lee, Esq., Secretary
to the Bishop of Winchester, for access to the Registers in
London; and to F. Bowker, Esq., Registrar of the Arch-
deaconry of Winchester, for permission to search the books
under his care. It may be thought presumption to remark
on the consideration which students invariably receive in our
XIV PREFACE.

 

public departments; but I cannot forbear acknowledging the
unvaried kindness and assistance of the authorities at the
Record Office. To others also, both in Southampton and
elsewhere, my thanks are due. To some I may have given
trouble, I have taken much myself; and at length am able
to leave to the kind judgment of my readers this imperfect
contribution to local history.
J. SILVESTER DAVIES.

ENFIELD HicHway, October 1883.
CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
INTRODUCTORY.

Pre-historic—British and Romano-British—Clausentum : its History

and Remains. ‘; ‘ ; ‘ . . a

CHAPTER II.

P AGE

THE TOWN: ITS RISE AND EARLY HISTORY.

SECTION I,—Origin and Name of Town—Ancient Site—Removal—
Historical Notices—Domesday

SECTION II,—The Fee-Farm 2 ‘ - : ‘ . a

CHAPTER III.
LOCAL AND DESCRIPTIVE.

SECTION I,—Liberties or Precincts: Account of Boundaries and
Encroachments ‘

SECTION II.—The Common and Common Lands . - . .

SECTION III.—Other Common Lands: the Saltmarsh: Old Contro-
versies: Modern Transformations . i . a .

SECTION 1V.—The Fortifications: the Walls—The Castle—The
Arcade— Norman Houses — Towers — Moats — Platform—
Crosshouse

SECTION V.—The Quays 2

SECTION VI.—Conduits and Waterworks

SECTION VII.—Pavement, Lighting, and Watching ‘

SECTION VIII.—Audit-house and Markets—Municipal Buildings

SECTION IX.—The Hartley Institute

SECTION X.—The Ordnance Survey Office

13-28
29-40

41-48
48-51

54759

59-111
ILI-113
TI4—119
IIQ—125
125-128
128-131

131
XVI CONTENTS.

 

CHAPTER IV.
MUNICIPAL.

SECTION I,—The Guild Merchant and Ordinances ,

SECTION II,—The Charters . é é : : : ;

SECTION III.—Municipal Offices: of the Mayor—List of Mayors,
Bailiffs, and Sheriffs—Of the Recorder—List—Of the
Town-Clerk—List—Of the Burgesses— Honorary Burgesses
—Burgesses of Parliament—Of the Sheriff—Of the Bailiffs
—Of the Steward and Treasurer— Other Officers

SECTION IV.—The Staple

SECTION V.—Of Exemptions from Prisage

SECTION VI.—Of the Admiralty Jurisdiction .

SECTION VII.—Petty Customs—Free Towns

SECTION VIII.—The Fairs . ‘ .

SECTION IX.—The Courts of the Town and County—Of the Town:
Court Leet-—Town Court—County Court—Quarter Sessions
— Orphans — Admiralty — Pie-powder — Pavilion Court
(Winchester)

SECTION X,—The Seals, Arms, Coinage, and Sir Bevois

CHAPTER V.
THE TRADE OF THE TOWN.

SECTION I,—General
SECTION II.—Trade Regulations
SECTION III.—Modern Trade

CHAPTER VI.
CHARITIES.

SECTION I,—The Almshouses
SECTION II,—Care of the Poor
SECTION JII.—Benefactions
SECTION IV.—Medical Charities

CHAPTER VII.
EDUCATIONAL.

SECTION I,—The Grammar School—West Hall
SECTION II,—Taunton’s School s : ‘
SECTION II].—Other Schools and Educational Agencies .

PAGE
132-151

152-163

233-245
245-247

248-264

264-279
280-292

293-294
294-300
300-309

309

310-323
3737325
325-327
CONTENTS.

xvil

 

CHAPTER VIII.
ECCLESIASTICAL.

SECTION 1.—The Parish Churches—St. Mary’s ; j ;
Parishes from St. Mary’s: Trinity—St. Luke’s—Christ Church,
Northam—St, James’s, Bernard Street—St. Matthew’s—
Christ Church, Portswood—St, Denys
Holy Rood .
St. Lawrence and St. John
St. Michael’s
All Saints ‘ 5 ‘ :
Parishes from All Saints: St. Paul’s—St. Peter’s
French Church
SECTION II, —Chantries : ;
SECTION III.—Nonconformist Congregations or Churches: Above
Bar—Albion—Kingsfield—Belvedere—East Street, Baptist
—Portland—Carlton—Particular Baptists—Bible Christians
—St. Andrew’s Presbyterian—Society of Friends—Syna-
gogue—East Street, Wesleyan—Bevois Town—Kingsland,
Primitive Methodists—Free Church—Catholic Apostolic—
Unitarian—Roman Catholic ‘
SECTION IV.—Religious Houses : Priory of St. Denys
Convent of Friars Minor
Hospital of St. Mary Magdalene
Hospital of St. Julian of God’s-house

CHAPTER IX.
EVENTS TILL THE PRESENT TIMES.

Historical Notices

PAGE

328-350

350-352
353-379
370-382
382-394
394-402
402-403
403-422
422-427

428-433
433-442
442-447
448-450
450-463

464-517
ERRATA.

Page 132, line 31, for “ Sir Edward ” read “ Sir Edmund.”
Page 166, line 34, for “ Aulnagar ” read “ Alnager.”’

Page 167, line 5, for “Scale” vead “ Seale.”

Page 168, line 11, for “ 1665” read “ 1655.”

Page 187, line 2, for “ translater ” read “ translator.”

Page 200, line 2, for ‘de Vans” read “ de Vaus.”

Page 253, line 33, for “ Toway ” zcad “ Fowey.”

Page 392, line 1, for second word “ of” read “at.”
Do
A
HISTORY OF SOUTHAMPTON.

CHAPTER. 1

INTRODUCTORY.

1. Pre-historic.—2. British and Romano-british.—3. Clausentum :
Lts History and Remains.

1. Traces of a pre-historic population occur in a district part of
which is now comprised within the Borough of Southampton. <A few
flint implements of the usual type have been found in gravel beds, once
the valley gravels of the Test and the Itchen. We may make some
probable conjectures as to the habits of those who used such tools
or weapons, but we can form no trustworthy calculation as to the
period when they lived. Their remains have become associated with
geological formations, and with changes which must have required
many ages for their completion. It is more than probable that the
implements which have been found in the drift in the immediate
neighbourhood of Southampton were in use when the configuration
of the whole district was very different. The Test and the Itchen,
between which rivers our Borough is situated, are remnants of another
disposition of land and water. What is now the Southampton Water
was itself then a river gathering the drainage of the country and
emptying it into a still larger stream. This larger stream, now
represented by the Solent, flowed from the west between the coasts of
Hampshire and what is now the Isle of Wight, before that island
was divided from Dorsetshire by the wearing away of the chalk rocks
which connected it at the Needles with the bold white cliffs of Dorset,
some twenty miles to the west."

It is no part of our task to follow out this interesting subject, which
bas reference to a time far anterior to the birth of history. Suffice

 

1 See Evans’s Stone Implements, pp. 543, 603, &c. ; Rev. W. Fox, Geologist, v.
452; Lyell’s Antig. of Man, p. 221, &c.’ The museum of the Hartley Institute

contains several relics of the pre-historic period.
A
usen-

2 INTRODUCTORY.

 

it to say, that these changes of land and water have made for our port
one of the finest harbours in England. From Calshot Castle at its
entrance to Southampton, the deep-water space embraces a channel
five miles in length with a depth of from five to nine fathoms for three
and a half miles of that distance at low water, and a breadth of half a
mile with a considerable space of shallower water on either side, the
mean distance from shore to shore being about two miles. A double
tide at this port—a phenomenon also observed as far apparently to the
west as Portland 1—has attracted attention since the days of Bede,”
and has given an important natural advantage to Southampton, the
second high tide occurring about two hours and a quarter after the
first, the fall between the two being only about nine inches; so that
practically the high water is stationary for over two hours.

2. We have no distinct evidence of there having been any settle-
ment at or near Southampton in the times preceding the Roman
occupation, but it is not unlikely. During the Roman period a native
population was probably gathered on the Southampton side of the
river Itchen—a Romanised British town in connection with Clausen-
tum, on the opposite bank. There had been a tradition of Roman
coins having been found at Bevois Mount; and in 1852 Roman
remains were discovered in the north-east of that locality, on the high
ground in front of Portswood lawn, overlooking the river; and again
in the same neighbourhood in 1868. Not very far from the same site
other Roman or Romano-British relics have been brought to light
mingled with those of the subsequent Old English population.*

3. We must now devote a little space to Clausentum. This
Roman fortress—the name of which probably enshrines the earlier
local appellation—stood upon a peninsula formed by the winding of
the river Itchen, about three miles from its junction with the
Southampton Water. This peninsula, which faces due west, was cut
across by two parallel fosses dividing it into two islands, the western-
most of these being nearly semicircular in form, the other and larger.
being nearly a parallelogram. A stream of fresh water flowing from
the north-east discharged itself on the shore close to the southern end
of the outer fosse, and may have contributed to the water supply of
the station. One of the Roman wells, not discovered til] the present
century, is still in use on the inner island.

The main fortress of the station was built on the westernmost
island, The fortifications consisted of a strong surrounding wall with

 

1 See Notes and Queries, April 23, 1881.
2 Bede, bk. iv. c. 16,
* Brit. Archzeolog. Journ., vol. xi. p. 338, xxiv. 399, xxii. 350.
INTRODUCTORY.

oo

 

towers at intervals; but we know nothing of the buildings within this
enceinte. Outside, at the foot of the wall, remains were found some years
ago of the strong wooden frame or quay work which possibly served
for the Roman galleys.

The gate of the main fortress was at or near the spot where the
present Northam road crosses the inner fosse. From this gate a road
led with a northerly inclination across the other island and the second
fosse till it struck, nearly at right angles, the road from Venta (Win-
chester) on the north to Porchester on the south-east. The road out
of Clausentum has not been laid open, but its direction is said to be
observed by the difference in the growth of the crops along its sup-
posed course. It seems doubtful whether the parallelogram-shaped
island was in any part fortified by walls or towers.

No particular attention seems to have been paid to the site till
the last century. Leland! and Camden mention it, the first as a
‘ferme placed . . . caulled Bitherne,’ belonging to the Bishops of
Winchester, where yet ‘remayne tokens and ruines of a castelle.’
Camden was shown ‘some rubbish and pieces of old walls, and the
trench of an ancient castle half a mile in compass,’ which at full tide
was ‘ three parts surrounded by water.’* These remains he supposed
to be either those of Clausentum or of one of the forts which, according
to Gildas, the Romans built to check the Saxon piracies. Other
writers since have given a few words to Bittern, but the place attracted
no attention. It was well away from any public road; and until
Northam Bridge was built in 1799, was only to be approached by a
solitary farm-road from Wood Mill, or by a footpath through woods
and fields along the river-bank from Itchen ferry, or by crossing the
river in a boat.3

The Rev. Richard Warner, in 1792, 1s generally credited with
having been the first to determine the position of Clausentum.t It is
however certain that he was indebted to the labours of Dr. Speed, who
had died in 1781, and whose work Warner had evidently used in every
particular regarding Clausentum, without a word of acknowledgment

Clausentum is only known through the Antonine Itinerary, the
date of which work may be about a.p. 320. From the probability of
the case we should suppose this fortress on the Itchen to have been

 

1 Itinerary, vol. iv. p. 21.

2 Gibson’s Camden’s Britannia, i. p. 35.

3 Buller’s Englefield’s Walk through Southampton, pp. 63, 64.

4 Attempt to Ascertain the Situation of the Ancient Clausentum, 1792. In
his preface of August 1, 1792, he states his discovery to have been just made,

6 We have thought it necessary to reproduce but a small portion of Dr,
Speed’s chapter on Clausentum, or the indebtedness of Warner would be made
manifest,
4 INTRODUCTORY.

 

erected at the very earliest period at which the Romans effected a
settlement, and wanted a safe water-way to Venta (Winchester) ; but
the reduction of this neighbourhood was among the earliest of the
Roman conquests in Britain. Dr. Speed, besides the probability of
the case, has drawn an argument in favour of an early date for
Clausentum from the freshness of large numbers of coins of the first
period discovered on the spot. He says, “I have myself had from
“thence the coins of Claudius, Nero, Vespasian, Sabina, Antoninus,
““Commodus, Lucilla, Alexander Severus, Constantius, Constans,
“ Carausius, Aurelianus, Valentinianus, and Valens, which compre-
“hend pretty nearly the whole time that the Romans were masters
“of Britain.” Hoards of coins, he observes, generally contain those
only of a few emperors who lived near each other’s times, and whose
coins might well be current together. And from the finds of Clau-
dius and other emperors of the earliest occupation containing many
specimens of fresh money he infers the early existence of the settle-
ment here.

As to inscriptions, he says, “I never could hear of any, great part
“of the old buildings having been long ago taken down by Mr.
“* Mylles, the owner, under the Bishop of Winchester, to build a house!
“and chapel upon another part of his estate, called Peartree, about a
** mile distant from it.”

Dr. Speed finishes his chapter on Clausentum by producing the
Itinerary ascribed to Antoninus, the seventh Iter of which stands as
follows, and by its general measurement points to Bittern as Claus-
entum ; °—

“Iter a Regno Londinium, MP. XCVI. sic:
Clausentum, MP, XX.
Ventam Belgarum, MP. X.
Callevam Atrebatum, MP, XXII,
Pontes, MP. XXII.
Londinium, MP. XXII,”

 

? Peartree House, afterwards inhabited by Captain Richard Smith, the builder
of Peartree Green Church.

? Dr. Speed’s text of the Iter is given, which is that of Surita, though it may
not be considered the best reading now: no difference occurs in the distances
from that of Wesseling. There is, however, a great variation as to the interpre-
tation of the places at the present day. Dr. Speed followed the view of his
time, and made Regnum, Azzgwood, Calleva, Wallingford, Pontes, Colebrook.
(See also Burton’s Antoninus’s Itinerary, pp. 217-225.) At the present time it
is received that Regnum is Chichester, Calleva, Silchester, Pontes, Szazues. Mr.
Roach Smith has suggested that the figure opposite Clausentum was probably
xxx, miles, the required distance from Chichester. Mr. Gordon M. Hills has
lately attempted to reconstruct the Roman geography of South Britain, under
whom Chichester becomes Clausentum, Havant, Venta, and the Bittern station,
Sorbiodunum, (See Journal of Brit. Archzeol. Assoc., Sept. 1878.)
INTRODUCTORY. 5

 

From Dr. Speed’s account we gather something of the condition
of the fortress in the last century, though it is difficult from his de-
scription to say how much was Roman, how much medieval.

* On the inner bank of this [westernmost or inner] ditch, towards
“ the north end of it, there is still standing an old stone building, now
“ converted into a barn, but which appears to me to have been part
of the old Roman fort, for in the upper part of the wall next the
ditch are slits to shoot arrows through, and within the barn are
plain marks of there having been a floor at such a height that men
standing upon it might conveniently shoot arrows through the slits.
At the north end of the barn are still to be seen some remains of the
foundation of the old wall of the fort, about four feet in thickness. At
the other end of the barn, adjoining to it, are the remains of a stone
gateway which consisted of two arches, one within the other, and
was, I suppose, the entrance into the fort by means of a drawbridge
over the ditch. There was a room over this gateway, for at that end
of the barn there is a door-case that leads to the top of the gate.
Within this barn is another old stone building, now a stable and
cart-house which reaches to the outside wall, next the river on the
east side, and on that side it has an arched window and slit like
those in the barn on each side of the window. From this building
there goes a wall to a square tower, still of some height, to the top of
which there is a stone staircase out of one of the upper rooms of the
manor-house which joins to it. At the bottom of this tower is a door-
case open to the shore from a small room, where perhaps a centinel
was placed to observe any signals that might be made from Bevois
“ All. Near this tower there still remain foundations of flint for a
** considerable space, and many fragments of the same appear all round
the ground within the inner ditch, and on the bank of that ditch.
But many of the materials were removed in Queen Elizabeth’s time
to build a house and chapel on another part of the owner’s estate.

“On the opposite side of the river southward is the place which
Bishop Gibson mentions in his additions to Mr. Camden to have
been converted into a dock for building men-of-war, and where he
says a gold coin had been then lately found. It is now called
Northam, and was probably a branch of Clausentum, for the channel
of the river runs so close under the shore here, that ships could
not pass up without being assailed from hence.

ce

ce

ce

ce

“ce

¢

a

rc?

a

ce

oe

n
nq

Ci

a

c

n

ce

ce

ce

ce

ce

ce

¢

a

a

ce

o

c

na

ce

oc

ce

ce

ce

 

1 See a previous note, Bishop Montague’s license to Captain Smith of Pear-
tree for enclosing ground on Ridgeway Heath for the purpose of a chapel and
burial-ground bears date February 23, 1617-18, The consecration of the chapel
and cemetery by Bishop Andrews took place on Sunday, September 17, 1620.
The Zouse may have been built in Queen Elizabeth’s time.

Remai
about }
afield’s
veries,

6 INTRODUCTORY.

 

“ Opposite to Bittern, on the west side across the river, is a hill
called Bevois Hill, from a legendary tradition that Bevois of South-
ampton lies buried under it. It is now part of the beautiful gardens
“ made by the late Earl of Peterborough. Where the summer-house
“ now stands was a barrow, and in digging the foundation of the sum-
mer-house a human skeleton with bones of a large size was found ;
“ but the compass of the foundation reaching no higher than the middle
“ of the thigh-bone, no search was made for the rest of the skeleton.

“ The top of this hill was used to be ploughed, and I have heard
“that Roman coins have been found there. The side of the hill next
“the shore is very steep, and has a wet ditch at the bottom of it. I
“ suppose this hill to have been the castrum exploratorum or scout
watch to the station, and that the whole comprehended Bittern as
“ the principal fort, another fort at Northam, and this hill. And the
“ communication was easy, for about forty years ago a very old person,
‘* being on evidence upon a trial, made oath that within his memory
“the river had been fordable over against Bittern towards Bevois
« All.”

It was at the beginning of the present century that the greatest
light was thrown upon Clausentum by the investigations of Sir Henry
Englefield, who had great facilities put in his way. That diligent
antiquary left no stone unturned which might possibly have a history
to divulge.1 The remains discovered by him consisted of architectural
fragments, some important inscriptions, fragments of Roman pave-
ment and of Samian and coarser ware, some glass specimens, with a
few other relics and coins, mostly of the Lower Empire. He also traced
out the whole of the ancient wall, which was about nine feet thick and
of the usual construction: it was, however, singular, though not unique,
in having no foundation whatever, its base being protected by an
earthen rampart.

The following inscriptions have been found at Bittern Manor: ?—

c

n

¢

a

ce

c

nx

1. Gordian the younger, A.D. 238-244,

IMP CM To the Emperor Caesar Marcus

ANT GOR Antonius Gor-

DIANO -dianus,

PF AVG the pious, the fortunate, the Augustus,
RP BI (?)

 

1 Walk through Southampton, rst ed. 1801, 2d ed. 1805 ; Bullar’s ed. of
Englefield’s Walk, with Notes, 1841. See also Duthie’s Sketches of Hampshire, pp.
417-421 (1839).

® See Mr. Roach Smith’s paper in Winchester volume of Brit. Archzol. Assoc.,
1845, pp. 163-170.
INTRODUCTORY. 7

 

2. Gallus and Volustan, A.D. 252-254.

IMPP CC To the Emperors Cesars
GALLO Gallus
ET VOLVSI and Volusi-
ANO AVG -anus, the Augusti.

G

3. Tetricus,! A.D, 267-272.

MCES To the Emperor Caius Es-
SVVIO -suvlus
TETRIC Tetric-
VS PFAV -us, the pious, the fortunate, the Augustus,

4. Tetricus.*

MP CA To the Emperor Caesar
CAESVIO Caius /Esuvius
TETRICO Tetricus,
PET AVG the pious and the Augustus.
5. Letricus the younger 8
IMP CC To the Emperor Czesar Caius
PIO ESVIO Pius Esuvius
TETRICO Tetricus,
PFAG the pious, the fortunate, the Augustus,

6, Aurelian, A.D. 270-275.

IMP CAES LV To the Emperor Cesar Lu-
CIO DOMI -cius Domi-
TIO AVRELIANO _ tius Aurelianus.

7. To Ancasta,* a local divinity,

DEAE To the Goddess

ANCA Anca-

STA G -sta G-

EMINV -eminu-

S MANTI -s Manti-

vs LM -us [performs a vow] willingly, deservedly,

8. A defaced portion of a miliary column, now lost, No reading has
been hazarded®

 

1 The bad grammar on this stone will be observed. At the Numismatic
Society in October 1875 a Gaulish coin was exhibited inscribed Esuios, a form of
Esuvius, as in above inscriptions.

2 See Archzologia, vol. xxix. 257.

3 A miliary stone to Tetricus the younger, who was associated with his father
as the Caesar, has been discovered by M. Mowat of Rennes, and deposited by him
in the museum of that place. He reads it thus, as given in a letter to Mr.
Macnaghten, ‘ Caio Pio Esuvio Tetrico Nobilissimo Cesari Civitas Redonum,’

4 Of these inscriptions, Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, were described by Englefield ;
Nos. 3, 5, and 7 are still preserved at Bittern Manor with other remains ; the rest
of the inscriptions are lost.

5 Mr. Roach Smith thinks it may have had reference to the rebuilding some
portion of the wall.
ny
the in-
ions.

8 INTRODUCTORY.

 

It will be seen that the inscriptions, as far as they can be assigned
to a date, belong to the third century. The stones themselves, that is,
such of them as are preserved at Bittern Manor, appear to have been
quarried in the Isle of Wight, and the same has been observed of other
stone about the place. The use of this stone would only show that the
Romans had already subdued and were working quarries in the island
when Clausentum was built ; but the island was reduced by Vespasian
in the middle of the first century.

We now turn to the period marked out by the inscriptions. That
dedicated to the unfortunate young Emperor Gordian stands out
Simply as a relic of lost history, the affairs of Britain at this time being
unrecorded by the ancient historians. The same may be said of the
next inscription, that to Gallus and Volusian, father and son. This
absence of record is sometimes taken to import a season of peacefulness
and prosperity in Britain. But the inscriptions to Tetricus introduce
us to another order of affairs, in which we find Britain wrested away
from the imperial government, and its throne held by a series of
usurpers. Tetricus, proclaimed emperor by the legions of Gaul with
his son Tetricus as Cesar, under the influence of Victoria the Augusta,
reigned over Gaul and Britain some five years, a slave to those who
had placed him on the throne. Able to bear this position no longer,
he sought deliverance at the hands of the lawful emperor, Aurelian,
against whom he was a rebel, imploring that victorious monarch in a
secret letter to ‘deliver him from his enemies.’ He then feigned the
appearance of war, led his troops against Aurelian, but in truth be-
trayed them, and himself deserted to the Emperor’s camp. This was
in 272. Two years after Tetricus and his son graced the triumph of
Aurelian on his return to Rome, but subsequently were admitted to
his friendship and advanced to wealth and dignity.1 It seems likely,
from the occurrence of these memorials to Tetricus at Bittern, that
Clausentum was his chief station in this country.2. Coins of Tetricus
have been found in abundance there.

With the fall of Tetricus, Britain again passed under the Roman
power, which remained undisputed for a short period. After the
murder of Aurelian in 275, Roman affairs under Tacitus, Probus,
Carus, and Carinus call for no special notice. Dioclesian succeeded
to the imperial people in 284, and now again a rival empire became
established in Britain. Carausius, a citizen of Menapia of singular
ability and cunning, had been intrusted by Maximian, the associate of

 

1 It is supposed that the memorials to Tetricus escaped the usual fate of those
of conquered rebels by the special favour of Aurelian.
2 See Wright’s Celts, &c., pp. 138, 422.
INTRODUCTORY. 9

 

Dioclesian, with the command of a fleet for protecting the British
shores against Francs and Saxons ;! but his honesty and fidelity be-
coming suspected, Maximian sent an order for his death. Carausius,
however, who had acquired much wealth, for little of what he rescued
from marauders had found its way to the imperial treasuries, bought
over the forces, seized Gessoriacum (Boulogne), the chief station of
the fleet, assumed the purple, and wrested Britain from the empire.
This was in 287. The loss of Britain was deeply felt, but after vain
attempts to overthrow the usurper, peace was made with him, and he
has commemorated the event on some of his coins, the heads of
Dioclesian, Maximian, and himself appearing surrounded by such
legends as ‘The peace of the Augusti,’ ‘Carausius and his brethren.’
The coinage of Carausius has been found in great plenty at Bittern.
He is believed indeed to have had a mint at Clausentum,? which may
have always been one of his chief stations. He was slain at York
in 294, by the treachery of his friend and minister Allectus, who
succeeded him and held Britain for two years.

During this time Constantius Chlorus was preparing for the inva-
sion of Britain. When all was ready, he divided his fleet into two
squadrons, himself holding command of one at Boulogne, and intrust-
ing the other at the mouth of the Seine to Asclepiodotus. The fleet
of Allectus was riding off the Isle of Wight when the squadron of
Asclepiodotus passed unnoticed in murky weather, and landed its
troops upon the British shore. Allectus, who was awaiting Con-
stantius in a different quarter, hastened to meet this unexpected foe.
We do not know exactly where the battle was fought, but in it Allectus
fell, and Britain passed again under the Roman power, a.pD.296. Coins
of Allectns, with what is supposed to be the Clausentum mint mark,
have been found in some number at Bittern.

No other historical events in any way connected with Clausentum Recon-
have come down to us. The dates of the inscriptions carry us to the forts
about the end of the third century, after which it would seem there
was some reconstruction of the fortress, fragments of ancient buildings
and stones which before had occupied places of greater honour being
worked into the wall ; for in such a position Sir Henry Englefield found
several, and apparently some of the above inscriptions. This rebuild-
ing or strengthening of the fortress may have occurred in the latter

 

1 Eutrop, ix. 21; Aurel, Victor de Czesaribus, xxxix, 20, 21, 39.

2 Wright's Celts, &c., pp. 140, 141 ; Akerman’s Coins of the Romans relating
to Britain, pp. 121, 136.

5 Such as C (Clausenti), MC (Moneta Clausenti), SC (Signata Clausenti),
MSC (Moneta signata Clausenti), SPC (Signata pecunia Clausenti), See
Wright’s Celts, &c., p. 431.
ibse-

nes.

10 INTRODUCTORY.

 

 

part of the fourth century, when the southern coasts were suffering
more and more from Franc and Saxon depredations: it may have been
after Theodosius had restored security to Britain for the time against
Picts, Scots, and Saxons, and had scen generally to frontier walls and
fortifications. Thus the date would be about A.D. 370.

Clausentum is not mentioned in the subsequent Notitia Imperii!
as among the stations of the Count of the Saxon Shore, the western-
most of which was at Portus Adurni,—the mouth of the Adur in
Sussex, probably at Bramber, some little way up the river, the outlet
of which was broader in former times. Though the strengthening of
the fortress may have been owing to the causes which had called into
existence the Count of the Saxon Shore, whose duty it was to keep in
check the invaders, yet it was apparently outside his jurisdiction, which
did not stretch beyond our county of Sussex.

We may conclude that the Romans kept up the fortress till they
left our Jand about 411; after which it may be taken for granted that
it was occupied by the native Britons, though but for a short period.
In little more than a century another kingdom—that of the West
Saxons—was set up in these parts; and the old Roman fortress and
town, possibly destroyed in some of the harrying raids of that period,
may have been left under its new lords to ruin and desolation.

We next find it, after a great interval, under the name of Bittern, as
an appendage of the See of Winchester, and in June 1284 the men of
the Bishop’s manors of Bitterne, Falele (Fawley), Ore (Ower), and
Stoneham were permitted by royal license to answer with the Bishop’s
hundred of Wautham (Waltham).? In the middle ages it was a
favourite manor and residence of the bishops. In 1286 we find Bishop
Pontissara issuing mandates from ‘ Byterne;’ Bishop Woodlock held
ordinations in the chapel of the manor-house in July 1305, and again
in August 1306 and April 1308. On the entrance of this Bishop the
necessary repairs upon the house were put at £100, those upon the
mills, &c., at £30. The appointments of bailiffs constantly occur,
similar appointments having been made till the changes of a few years
ago. The earliest extant seems to be that of Bishop Woodlock on his
coming to the See, when he wrote to the bailiff and his men of Bytterne
to receive Thomas Je Eyr for his bailiff and to attend to him. These

 

1 Date of this is the end of fourth or beginning of fifth century. The
authority of the Count was confined to the counties of Norfolk, Suffolk, Essex,
Kent, and Sussex ; his stations and troops being settled at Branodunum (Bran-
caster), Garriannonum (Burgh), Othona (on the Blackwater, now covered by the
sea), Regulbium (Reculver), Rutupiz (Richborough), Dubris (Dover), Portus
Lemanis (Lymne), Anderida (Pevensey), Portus Adurni (mouth of the Adur).

2 Pat. 12 Ed. I. m. 11.
INTRODUCTORY. II

 

commissions, frequently issued in favour of the Bishop’s valet (valectum
nostrum) for good conduct, need not be further mentioned.

Bishop Fox let the place with the pasture called ‘ Bytterne Parke’
for thirty-one years to John Tanner otherwise Mason of Weston,
husbandman, for the yearly rent of £13, 13s. 4d. from Michaelmas
1520, Mason covenanting to keep in repair the house, with all the
walls, ditches, gates, &c.!. From this period Bittern may have ceased
to be a residence of the bishops. In September 1551 it was alienated?
by Bishop Poynet to Edward VI., together with the manors of Merdon,
Twyford, Marwell, Waltham, and various other possessions, which
were all restored to the See by Queen Mary? under Bishop Gardiner in
1553. Plundered from the See by the Commonwealth, it was sold #
in June 1649 to John Barkstead, Esq., for £1716, 6s. 8d., and again
restored in 1660, It does not appear when the possession of the
manor-house (the old fortress) was separated from that of the manor.
The latter continued to be held directly by the bishops till the death of
Bishop Sumner, after which it passed to the Ecclesiastical Commis-
sioners, while the manor-house has been for many years in private
hands, its present proprietor being Steuart Macnaghten, Esq. Before
taking leave of Clausentum or Bittern, it may be well to notice the
changes which have occurred there since the time of Sir Henry Engle-
field. When he wrote, part of the gateway and the ‘ barn’ spoken of
by Dr. Speed were existing; but these buildings were demolished at
the commencement of the present century. ®

The manor-house was in Englefield’s time a farm residence, which
he describes as built into the remains of a ‘stately Norman edifice.’
Much of the history of the building is now totally covered from the
eye, as necessarily in the case of a modern dwelling-house, but in the
basement may still be seen eleventh-century work, if not that of an
earlier period. One of the chambers in the first storey retains an
ambry of the fourteenth or fifteenth century: there is also early
medieval work immediately behind the new drawing-room, generally
supposed to be some remains of the chapel.

A fragment of the Roman surrounding wall still exists at a little
distance beyond the west end of the house. In Englefield’s days there

 

1 Reg. Pontiss, f. 5, &c.; Woodlock, f. 2, 10 + b., &c., 307b., 311 b., 316;
Fox, iv. f. 56 b.

2 Records in Collier’s Hist., No, Ixvii,

3 See in Milner, i, 271.

4 See Doc, in Gale’s Hist., p. 21 ; Winchester vol. Brit, Arch, Assoc. (1845),

AT:

i They were medieval or medievalised. A drawing of one of the windows is
given in the Hants Repository, vol, ii, plate iv.
12 INTRODUCTORY.

 

were considerable remains of this fortification. But about the time
that Northam Bridge and the new road were in construction, Clausen-
tum was also undergoing reconstruction at the hands of its then
proprietor. Every fragment of stone that could be utilised was turned
to account,! walls were rooted out, aggers levelled to improve a kitchen
garden and enrich a pasture. Little, in fact, was left but what could
not well be destroyed. At the present day we have to lament the loss
of five out of the eight inscriptions found on the spot.

It only remains to notice the alterations which have occurred in
the ancient landmarks of Clausentum by the addition of soil reclaimed
from the river. In Englefield’s time, and for many years after, the
boundaries remained as in the Roman period, and the tide washed
nearly to the foot of the old manor-house and the fragments of the
ancient walls. :

The first alteration was effected by reclaiming a large portion of
land on the north side, extending from the outer fosse to a point west-
ward, nearly opposite what was then the island.

A further alteration has been made within the last few years by
taking in a still larger portion of mud-land. Starting from or near
the point just mentioned, the island itself has been included in the
mainland, which now is extended towards a point near the foot of
Northam Bridge.

It is necessary to bear in mind these alterations in any examina-
tion of the spot. A round tower, built a few years ago, marks the site
of the island; while the old Roman boundary of the station is to be
traced by the sudden fall of the land from the more ancient level to
that of the soil reclaimed. On the east side of Northam Bridge the old
coast-line is still preserved.”

 

1 See Duthy, p. 420.

2 A large number of Roman coins and some other relics found on the spot
are preserved at Bittern Manor by Steuart Macnaghten, Esq., the owner of the
estate, to whose courtesy archzologists visiting Southampton have been so con-
stantly indebted.
CHAPTER. U1

THE TOWN: ITS RISE AND EARLY HISTORY.

Section I.

1. Origin and Name of Town.—2. Ancient Site.—3. Removal.—
4. Historical Notices.—s5. Domesday.

Wits the fall of the Roman power in Britain we lose the guid-
ance of their writers, and the general history of our land passes through
a semi-mythic period with the barbarian invaders: we take up our
story where we can begin to deal with certainties.

1. “Cerdic and Cynric, his son, the founders of the West Saxon
“kingdom, landed somewhere in this neighbourhood ;” and the king-
dom being founded in 519, after the battle of Cerdices-ford or Char-
ford, near Breamore, Winchester was secured as the key to the old
Roman roads ; but it seems not improbable that Hampton, our town,
was the earliest home of the invaders, and remained for some time
the base of their work. Doubtless from this port the conquest of
the Isle of Wight was undertaken in 530 by the West Saxons in con-
junction with their Jutish allies, who thenceforth became settled in
the island, and who probably at that period were admitted to occupy,
as their descendants did in Bede’s time, a little portion of West Saxon
territory 1 opposite the Isle of Wight.

No distinct mention of the town occurs till the ninth century, Existenc
but we meet with the name of the shire, which was derived from that 0Ffo¥?
of the town. Thus, to lay no stress on a doubtful writing of Cedwealha eo
of Wessex, 4.D. 680, in which mention is made of the ‘territory of
Heantun,’ the name of Hamtun-scire occurs in the English Chronicle
under 755, when Cynewulf and the West Saxon Witan deprived
Sigebryht of his kingdom except Hamtun-scire. But the town must
have had importance before it could give its name to the shire, and
this was probably early. The recovery of Winchester after the

 

1 The places Meonstoke and East and West Meon preserve a memory of
the settlement of the Jutish Meonwara, See Green’s Making of England, 89.
It was called ‘the province of Meonwara, in the nation of the West Saxons,’
and went in a grant with the Isle of Wight from Wulfere to Adilwalch.
Ibid. go and ref,
™4 THE TOWN.

 

destruction of its civilisation by Cerdic was a matter of time; and
though it became the residence of kings and the seat of a bishopric,
still the ‘ home-town’ of the conquerors by the sea was their own
creation, and retained sufficient hold early in the West Saxon monarchy
to give its name to the district before the great rise of the royal and
episcopal city. The name continues as Hamtun-scire till about the
middle of the tenth century, when the prefix south appears. We then
begin to read of Suthamtonia and Suthamtunensis provincia and Suth-
hamton-scire, as well as the older form.!. In Domesday the name is
Hantescire ; and from this probably the modern appellation of Hants
is derived,

The name of the town thus passed on to the shire in the above
forms was Hdm-tiéin, a name purely English. Ham is the word home,
and tn means an enclosure, a combination of which we have so many
examples, blending the happy ideas of home and security. In relation
to this Hamtun, the chief settlement, there was a ‘home’ a little to
the north belonging to later times—the suburb we know as Northam.

The name of Hamtun or Hamtune first occurs under 837 in the
English Chronicle. thelwulf of Wessex in 840 dates from the royal
vill of Hamtun; and we get variations of this, such as Hamtone,
Haamtun, Heantun, till the above-mentioned period, the middle of the
tenth century, when the prefix South is met with. Thus in 962 the
royal dues of Suth-hamtune were granted by King Eadgar, with other
possessions, to the monastery of Abingdon, which he had restored.
From this time the name of Suthamtun and its Latinised forms become
very frequent, though by no means to the exclusion of the earlier,
which still remained the common use. Thus in 1045 we read Heantun
in a grant of the Confessor to Bishop Aélfwin; and in another gift
from the same king to the same bishop, and dated in the same year,
there is mention of the have at Hamtune, that is, the hedge or enclosure
at or near the town’s limits.”

Judging, therefore, from the probabilities of the case and the evi-
dence before us, as far as it goes, we conclude that the rise of the
town was early in the English settlement; that here the conquerors
first formed their ham-tun, which gave its name to the district round
when it became necessary to distinguish it from other West Saxon
principalities ;* that in the tenth century the town became known as

 

1 For numerous examples of all the above forms, see documents in
Kemble’s Codex Diplomat. Aivi Saxonici, the English Chronicle, Ethelwerd,
Florence of Worcester, &c.

2 For documents see Codex Diplomaticus,

3 See Freeman (Norm. Conquest, i. 49), who suggests that the capital city
may have been kept distinct from the shire,
ANCIENT SITE. 15

 

Suth-hamtun, the prefix being added to distinguish it from other
localities similarly named, and especially from the Ham-tun in Mercia
(Northampton) after the annexation of that kingdom to Wessex in
920; that the change of the shire-name followed that of the town,
though in each case the original appellation continued to be the one
most frequently used.

2, We may now pass to the site of the town. Leland,’ who presented Old site.
his Itinerary to Henry VIII. in 1546, heard on his visit to South-
ampton that the town did not originally stand where it now does, but
in the immediate neighbourhood of St. Mary’s Church, some quarter of
amile or more to the north-east of the walled town, whence it stretched
away to the river-side. Camden, the first edition of whose work
appeared in 1586, heard the same account; and excavations made
within the last forty-five years go to prove that these illustrious
antiquaries had so far accepted and have handed down a true
tradition.

In 1839 digging for clay was commenced in a field of eight acres in
the parish of St. Mary, north-eastward of the town and extending to-
wards the Itchen. The field had been hitherto used as arable and
garden ground, and is now built over. It was found that the ground
had been perforated over all its surface with large pits, over which
there lay an accumulation of recent soil about two feet thick. Clay
had been originally dug from these pits, which had been afterwards
filled with all sorts of rubbish, amongst which were found the bones
and teeth of various animals, such as deer, oxen, horses, sheep, pigs ;
there were boars’ tusks, oyster shells, fish and fowl bones, &c. ‘The
bones were in such quantity that the labourers collected and sold them
to the bone dealers in the neighbourhood, at the rate of twopence for
a ballast basketful, containing about ten gallons. In two days,? a
quantity sufficient to produce twenty-four shillings was obtained, so that
one man of the party was afterwards employed to collect the bones and
sell them for the benefit of the other labourers, and frequently got fifteen

 

1 <The Town of Old-Hampton, a celebrate Thing for Fisschar Men and sum
Merchauntes, stoode a Quater of a Mile or ther above from New-Hampton by
North Est and streachyd to the Haven syde. The Plotte wheryn it stoode berith
now good corn and gresse, and is namyid S, Maryfeld by the chirch of S. Mary
stonding hard by it.

‘Sum Men yet alyve have seene dyvers Houses (especially up into the Lande
of Old-Hampton) withyn the Feld self now caullyd S, Maryfeeld. Some thinke
that the greate Suburbe standing a litle without the Est Gate of New-Hampton and
joyning to S. Mariefeld was parte of Old-Hamptoun.’—J¢iz,, iii. 105.

2 The late J. R. Keele, Esq., to whom we are indebted for the narration of
these and similar discoveries ; Collectanea Antiqua, vol, iv. (1857), pp. 58-62 and
plates. See also Mr. Atherley’s communication to Brit, Archzeol, Journal, vol.
v. (1850), p. 162.
16 ANCIENT SITE.

 

shillings a week for his share. It was thought that at the end of 1849
fifty tons of bones had been obtained from these pits.

Quantities of old English coins were found in these investigations.
There were sceattas of different types, pennies of Offa (Mercia), 757—
796; Coenwulf (Mercia), 796-819 ; Ecbeorht, 800-836 ; Burgred,
(Mercia), 852-874; Ceolwulf (Mercia), 874-877; Plegmund, Abp.,
890-915; Allfred, 871-901 ; Eadward the elder, 901-924; /£thelstan,
924-941; Eadmund, 941-946; Eadred, 946-955; Eadgar, 959-9753
/Ethelred, 978-1016. Coins of the above dates, and others which could
not be read, were found while preparing for the foundations of the
prison erected in the same field. Besides the pits above spoken of, wells,
said to have been for water, were also observed; they had been sunk to
a greater depth than the pits, and were filled with bones and rubbish.*

It appears that in digging out the clay the labourers came to as
many as six or eight intersecting streets from twenty to thirty feet wide,
the hard surface of the streets resting on the undisturbed clay.

In laying the foundation of Grove Street, immediately to the
south of the field just spoken of, a large number of human bones were
discovered ; and in one of the graves a curious green glass vase, still
preserved. This spot is believed to have been an early burial-ground
of the settlement; the green vase, which was lying on the face of a
skull, and some other objects discovered, belonging to a remote period.

Among the relics found in the rubbish-pits were several iron and
bronze keys, and metal pins with ornamental heads, The bulk of the
remains, including two spoons and one spoon and fork, were believed
to range from the eighth to the tenth centuries. The household
implements thus brought to light are examples of which few have been
discovered of so early a date. The combination of spoon and fork in
one implement is very rare, and may be compared with an example in
the Londesborough Collection, which was found in Wiltshire together
with coins of the eighth and ninth centuries.”

In March 1856 a similar discovery of bone-pits was made on the
site of what is now called the Edinburgh Hotel in St. Mary’s Road,
about 150 yards from the pits described above, and forming a continua-
tion of them. They were rectangular, from six to eight feet long, from
four to six feet broad, and from six to seven and a half feet deep, though
the depth was not always ascertained ; above them the surface ground
was about two feet in thickness. On examination the bones were
found to be of a similar character to those in the other pits. There were
also fragments of bricks and tiles which had been perforated by tubular

 

1 Brit, Archeolog. Journal, vol. xx, pp, 68-73.
2 Archzologia, vol, xxvii, pl. xxiv,
ANCIENT SITE. 17

holes about an inch in diameter, and some pieces of Anglo-Saxon, that
is, Old English pottery.1 In December 1859 opportunity was afforded
for examining the ground immediately.above the inn just mentioned,
Owing to the elevation of the road in front of the site, it was not neces-
sary to excavate to any depth for building purposes, but enough surface
ground was cleared away to discover the mouths of various pits, which,
as far as they were entered, contained similar collections of bones to
those previously found. There were also obtained from these pits two
Roman coins, one of Constantine I., the other of Constantine JI., and
another penny of Offa. To these coins may be added a penny of
Ceolnoth, Archbishop of Canterbury (830-871), found in the same
locality; another of Burgred, one of Ethelbearht, and one of Ecgberht,
son of Offa (796).

Subsequently to this, namely, in 1864 and 1866, further discoveries
of bone-pits were made in the same locality, and in excavations pre-
pared for the new streets on Jand to the east side of St. Mary’s Road,
belonging to Queen’s College, Oxford, and Jong occupied as a market-
garden; no coins were observed, but bones as before, and some
Romano-British and Old English relics.2, Besides the coins mentioned
above, there have been found in the same neighbourhood a penny of
Cuthred (Kent), 796-805; one of thelbearht, 860-866 ; one of Eadward
the Confessor, 1042-1066 ; two of Charlemagne, 800; one of an uncertain
Archbishop of Canterbury, bearing on the obverse ‘ Dorobernia civitas,’
and on the reverse ‘ Luning moneta;’ and in addition to these several
coins of the post-Conquest kings.?

The evidence from these discoveries goes to prove the existence of
an ancient town in the north and north-eastern districts of modern
Southampton: on the other hand, the absence of such remains within
the walls affords negative evidence as to there having been any settle-
ment on the site of the medieval town. We are thus enabled to verify
the old tradition of Hampton having been removed at some period to
its present site within the walls.

3. The received tradition associates this removal with the burning When:
of the town under Edward III. Thus Leland,* who represents the talk oe
of his time: ‘The old town of Hampton was brent in tyme of warre, Pres
spoyled and rasyd by French pyrates. This was the cause that the

 

' The late Rev. E. Kell in Brit, Archeolog. Journal, vol. xiii. (1857), pp.
207-210,

2 Id., vol. xvi. (1860), p, 333; xvii. (1861), p. 231; xx. (1864), pp. 68-73 ;
xxii, (1866), p. 455.

3 Most of the above-mentioned coins were in the collection of the late
Captain Bradby, R.N. Casts of several of them are in the Hartley Museum,

4 Itin., iii, 106,

3
18 REMOVAL.

 

inhabitantes there translatid themself to a more commodious place
and began with the kinges Licens and Help to build New-Hampton
and to walle yt yn defence of the enemies.’ The tradition may
embrace an element of truth as to the cause of removal being inva-
sion and spoliation, but the ravages were those of Danish, not
French invaders.

The recollection of past weakness, and the knowledge that hard
by existed a spot more capable of defence for the future, may have
caused the migration from the old to the new site in the settled times
of good King Cnut the Dane, whose memory has always been as-
sociated with the town. To the west and south-west there was
ground on a slight elevation as compared with the level of the
ancient occupation, which was scarcely above high-water mark; and
towards the north-west portion of the area selected the ground
reached its greatest altitude, offering the fitting centre for defence.
On this elevation, easily adapted to warlike requirements, fortifica-
tions were constructed, under the shadow of which the new town grew
up. No traces of these ancient works remain; but the stately keep
of the Norman castle, the site of which is accurately known, must
have been a replacement of the earlier fortress.) The removal of the
town, then, probably took place early in the eleventh century, or before
the death of Cnut in 1035. By the end of that century we have
evidence that the town was on its present site; and the remains of the
population, described above, would seem to indicate an occupation in
the ancient locality till about the period suggested. There is every
probability that a large space of land was included in the ancient
tun-scipe; and it seems likely that we have a remnant of the ancient
relation between Old and New Hampton in the traditionary ecclesias-
tical connection between the churches of the borough. There has long
been a doubtfulness as to the connection of St. Mary’s with the other
parishes of the town. Leland distinctly affirmed it to be the mother
church, and this Dr. Speed denied.1| But Leland was right and Speed
wrong, for there is direct evidence of this relation, as will be seen
farther on.

The tun-scipe was the sphere of the parish priest; and it is sug-
gested that the sites of Old and New Hampton were both parts of the
same civil and ecclesiastical township or parish; that when the town
clustered for shelter near the newly erected fortification, no change
was made in this relation; that St. Mary’s occupies the site of the
original ecclesiastical establishment for the whole neighbourhood, and
is a witness to a history before the present town grew up.

 

1 See under St. Mary’s.
HISTORICAL NOTICES. 19

 

We have only general information to guide us as to the construc- Th: to
tion of the town in its earliest days. Stretching along the bank of
the Itchen and inland, including perhaps the modern St. Matthew’s
Church on the north, and certainly St. Mary’s on the south, near which
was the cemetery of the settlement, we may see a wooden-built town
or home—such was usual, the very word for luild being timbrian, to
construct of ¢imbor (timber)—surrounded by its enclosure or tun, that
is, a rampart of earth with a wooden stockade, the entrance through
which was the géat or gate, outside all being a ditch. And when the
town moved along to its new site, the general features were reproduced,
excepting that possibly stone began to replace wood in some of the
more prominent defences, as befitting the dignity of a place which had
now become a burh or borough, as we shall see. A gerefa or reeve in
the early times, who differed little from the steward of a manor, was
the head of the community, and served for civil affairs on the part of
the royal lord—our town being always the king’s town or borough,
and held directly from him, as the parish priest served in matters
ecclesiastical. .

4. No earlier mention of the town occurs! than under 837, when Histori
a large force of Danes landed at Hampton from thirty-five ships, but a
were repulsed with great slaughter by the shire ruler, the Ealdorman
Wiulfheard.?

Upon the death of thelbald in 860, the Danes again landed at
Hampton, and pressed on to Winchester, which they sacked; but on
their return with the spoil, were met by Osric and Aithelwulf, Ealdor-
men of Hampshire, and Berkshire, and defeated with great loss. The
remnant got to their ships and went into winter quarters in the Isle of
Thanet.?

The next notice is of a more peaceful character. The town is
classed ‘ with other burhs,’ as having a mint, in the Constitutions of the
Synod of Greatley in 925, which give the earliest English laws extant
about coinage. One kind of money was to be current throughout the
realm, and mints were appointed as follows:—At Canterbury, seven
minters or coiners—four for the king, two for the bishop, and one for
the abbot; at Rochester, three—two for the king and one for the

 

1 Dr. Speed mentions this incident next after his account of the landing of
Cerdic and Cynric, given above. Between this and the Norman Conquest, at
which latter period he rightly places the real growth of the port, he gives four
notices of Danish raids, one of them clearly belonging to Northampton, and no
other historical reference. It has not been thought necessary to reproduce these
notes,

? English Chron., sub ann. ; Flor. Worcest., Hoveden, &c,

? English Chron., W, Malmesbury, Asser,
20 HISTORICAL NOTICES.

 

abbot ; London, eight ; Winchester, six; Lewes, two; Hampton, two;
Wareham, Exeter, Shaftesbury, each two; Hastings and Chichester,
each one; ‘and other burhs, one! Ruding finds the mint mark of
Southampton on coinage from the reign of Eadmund in 940 to that of
Stephen, under the forms H, HA, HAM, AMTD, HAN, HAMT, HAMTV,
HAMTVN, after which period it occurs no more.? In 1833 upwards of
six thousand coins were found at Beaworth in Hants, bearing some of
these mint marks and the moneyer’s name, Sepine: they belong chiefly
to the reigns of the first two Williams.’ It has been questioned whether
these mint marks may not refer to Northampton. But the geographi-
cal connection forbids this: added to which Northampton was but of
little consequence at this period. The mint at Northampton perhaps
appears NorRT under William I., though possibly Norwich may be
intended. It occurs under Henry I. as norwa, the Southampton mark
at the same period being HAM: just as in Domesday the same distinc-
tion had been drawn between these places, Southampton retaining the
old appellation and appearing as Hantune, and the shire Hantescire,
while the old Mercian town was written as Northamton and the
county Northamtscire. No mention occurs in Domesday of any mint
in either of these counties or towns.

The story of Northern raids has been somewhat interrupted; the
interval represents a comparative quiet. For some period the North-
men had not ventured to attack the English shore, but with the un-
happy reign of thelred (978-1016) the piratical descents were
renewed. Hampton was ravaged by a sea force in 980, and suffered
greatly in the loss of its citizens; many were slain, many taken
captive.*

In the next year (981), the town suffered from those ‘seven ships’
which did so much damage and caused such talk throughout the
country.2 Apparently the Northmen met here with some successful
resistance ; we are told they fled to their ships, but not before they
had sommaitted their usual atrocities along the waterside.

Later in this reign (994), Southamaten was made the head winter
quarters of the Danes and Norwegians, who, under Svein, king of the
former, and Olaf of the latter, had laid siege to London frees as many
as ninety-four ships. Repulsed by the citizens, they had scourged the
coasts of Essex, Kent, Sussex, and Hampshire, ‘burning, plundering,
and murdering.’ Finding themselves feebly opposed, they dashed into
the interior of the country, and #thelred and his Witan, equal to no

 

1 Wilkins, Leges A.S., p. 59. * Ruding, i. 251, &c., ii, 35,
* Archeologia, xxvi. 1. 4 Eng. Chien » Flor, Wore,
> Eng, Chron, ; Eulogium, iii. 24; Malmesb,
HISTORICAL NOTICES. 21

 

higher counsels, purchased immunity from the marauders at £16,000.
They accepted the terms, and waited at Hampton with their whole
army till the money should be paid.

While their fleet was in harbour and the whole neighbourhood in
deepest suffering, it occurred to Aithelred that a bond existed between
the Norwegian king and himself which it might be well to acknow-
ledge. Some time before, Olaf had received baptism at the hands of a
hermit on one of the Scilly Isles; and the claims of Christian brother-
hood were now made by Athelred, who sent Ailphear, Bishop of
Winchester (St. Alphage), afterwards murdered by the Danes, and
/Ethelweard the Ealdorman, inviting him to his court at Andover,
hostages in the meantime being given to the fleet. Olaf met with a
royal reception: he received confirmation from the Bishop of Win-
chester, and after many favours from the king, who had adopted him
as his spiritual son, he returned to Hampton, having first sworn that
he would never again come to England as a foe: and this promise he
kept. In the following summer Olaf and Svein left our shores—Olaf
to suffer ultimately through the enmity of Svein, possibly incurred at
this period of Olaf’s vow.

The greater portion of the army still remained behind, the burden
becoming insupportable on the people of Hampton and Wessex ; and
finding the country impoverished, the marauders sailed westward to
give the men of Hampton time to recover. They renewed their visit
in 998, receiving their supplies as before from Hampshire and Sussex ;
but the siege of Rochester the following spring at length aroused
Ethelred, and a fleet was prepared, which, though hindered in every
way by incompetence and treachery, had the effect of warning off the
foe from England to Normandy for the ensuing year.

In toor the Danes again ravaged Hampton and the Isle of
Wight; and Athelred and his Witan a second time purchased peace at
the price of maintaining the invaders and a sum of £24,000. In
the next spring came (1002) the marriage of Zthelred with Emma
(ZElfgifu), the gem of Normandy, an alliance which might have
strengthened the kingdom, but for the conduct of the worthless king.
Whether or not this was feared by the Danes, we hear something of a
secret conspiracy to murder the king and the Witan, a design, if real,
terribly met by a counterplot, of which there is no doubt. Secret orders
were issued to the cities and towns for a general massacre of the Danes,
without regard to sex or age, on the following St. Brice’s Day (Novem-
ber 13): a mandate faithfully obeyed and carried out with ferocity,

 

1 Eng. Chron.; Malmesb., ii, 10 ; Huntingdon ; Lappenberg’s England under
A.S. Kings, ii, 157, &c.
22 HISTORICAL NOTICES.

 

Among those who fell was an heroic Christian lady, Gunhild, the sister
of Svein. She first saw her husband slaughtered and her son trans-
fixed with four spears; then making no cry for mercy, she uttered
with prophetic force a warning of the account which would soon be
required of the land.

Svein, in answer to his countrymen’s and his sister’s blood, swore
that he would conquer the realm within three years. He landed in
Devonshire in the spring of 1003. Exeter, Wilton, and Salisbury soon
fell before him. A powerful army gathered against him out of Hants
and Wilts was neutralised by the treachery of its leader, Aélfric ; and
the Danish monarch, satiated with blood and plunder, was suffered to
gain the sea, ‘where he knew that his sea-horses were.’ ?

The next year’s expedition (1004) was against East Anglia, where
the Danes confessed they had never met worse hand-play among the
English than Ulfcytel, the Ealdorman, had brought them, and for a
brief season Hampton and Wessex were in quiet.

It was after midsummer 1006, when ‘the great fleet’ under Svein
had put in at Sandwich, and the enemy had done their wont, ravag-
ing, burning, destroying wherever they went, that Athelred levied an
army from Wessex and Mercia. But so little disciplined were the
troops, that they proved hardly less disastrous to the unhappy people
than the marauders themselves; and nothing was effected against the
Danes, who passed to winter quarters in the Isle of Wight, levying
their supplies from all Southamptonshire. At mid-winter they burst
out again through Hampshire into Berkshire, to Reading, to Walling-
ford, and other places, ‘doing as their wont, and lighting their war
beacons as they went.? A band raised to cut them off was destroyed,
and the terror-stricken citizens of Winchester saw them pass their city
gates laden with spoil in the insolence of triumph and security.
Wessex was now desolated, and the miserable AEthelred, who had fled
into Shropshire, again, with the consent of his Witan, purchased
peace at the price of £36,000 of silver, with rations as usual till
payment.”

The brief interval of rest thus shamefully bought was occupied
nevertheless by wise ]Jaw-making, civil and ecclesiastical ;3 and an-
other attempt was made at a fleet, with success so far, that in 1009
there rode before Sandwich a gallanter navy than England had ever

 

1 Eng. Chron., sub ann, ; Florence of Worcester, &c.

2 Eng. Chron., sub, ann, 1006, 1007,

3 The constitutions of the Witan, lay and clerical, under 4thelred, and the
canons of the Witan at A‘nham (perhaps the modern Ensham), are solemn read-
ing, recalling our forefathers to righteousness in word and work, and to those
efforts of patriotism which were specially needed,
IIISTORICAL NOTICES,

Wo

Go

 

seen—the willing effort of the whole nation under heavy taxation.
But no sooner had the fleet been collected than misfortune, desertion,
treachery, waited on it. ‘ We had not the good fortune or the worthi-
ness that the ship-force should be of any more use than it had been
before? A panic seized the king, the ealdormen, the nobles: they
fled to land, and the deserted seamen brought the ships to London.
Thus did the ‘nation’s toil pass lightly away,’ cries the contemporary
historian; and with the dispersion of the fleet the Danes were at
hand, and again for three years the kingdom was cruelly ravaged,
Hampshire suffering heavily with the southern, midland, and eastern
counties; truce being purchased at £48,000 in 1012.)

‘We must cut short this tale of guilt, misery, and dissension. The
winter of 1013 saw the unhappy thelred, a fugitive from Svein and his
own people, at Southampton, whence he slunk off to the Isle of Wight
and passed over to Normandy. He was recalled on the death of Svein,
which occurred suddenly on February 3, 1014, but the Danish fleet
had proclaimed Cnut, the son of Svein. The king returned in Lent,
and Cnut retired before him. The elated English revenged themselves
on the remnant of the Danes and on the people of Lindsey (Lincoln-
shire), who had been forced into treaty with them. Cnut, on his
part, thinking England now lost, cut off the ears and noses of the
brave and noble young men who had been delivered to his father as
hostages, set them on shore at Sandwich, and made off to Denmark.
Even now the English had reminders of the Danish yoke in a tax at
the time imposed of £21,000 for Thorkell’s army, the king’s ally at
Greenwich, bought over by Athelred some time before.”

Thorkell himself was reconsidering his position: the result was,
that leaving the bulk of his army behind, he sailed off to Denmark,
gave his services to his old master’s son, and brought that monarch
back to England with a powerful fleet in the spring of 1015, and before
the end of the year Cnut was master of Wessex.

On the death of ithelred, 23rd April 1016, his brave son,
Eadmund, became king. Cnut at this time was in Southampton,
whither came, in obedience to his summons, the thanes and clergy—
the Witan, the wise men—of Wessex, to abjure their allegiance to the
house of Aithelred and swear it to the Dane: yet the solemnity was
barely ended when, with a sudden turn of fortune, Wessex more joy-
fully received the intrepid Eadmund. It was only for a hasty moment.
Within six months of his accession Eadmund was forced to divide his
kingdom with the invader, To Cnut Mercia and Northumbria fell,
the rest, including of course Wessex, remained to Eadmund; but

 

? Eng, Chron,, sub ann, 2 Ibid,
24 HISTORICAL NOTICES.

 

immediately after this he was murdered (November 30, 1016), and the
whole passed to Cnut.

The kingdom thus acquired was divided into four parts—Mercia,
East Anglia, Northumbria, and Wessex; the three former being
governed by lieutenants, but Wessex—the core of the whole—being
reserved for Cnut himself. Under his strong rule the country rose
from its ruin; and there can be no doubt that both Winchester and
Southampton very greatly revived. To the favour of this monarch we
have attributed the removal of the town to a better site.

It is very certain that the character of the king underwent a
remarkable change after he became possessed of the English crown.
Bloodthirsty and savage at first like his fathers, he became strong, wise,
temperate, religious. His laws, his policy, his address to the seapls on
his return from Rome-<which, together with the future immunity to
travellers through Gaul secured by his pilgrimage, is placed by Henry
of Huntingdon sccond among the three great occurrences in his reign
—bear witness to the change. However, our object is not to deal
generally with his character or reign, but to introduce the third remark-
able occurrence, which concerns us much, though without pledging
ourselves to Henry’ s estimate of it. 7

The year is uncertain, the month, day, and hour alike unspecified,
though, considering our mud shores, we presume the tide was nearly
high, when King Cnut sat himself on the Southampton beach in a
royal chair, while round him was gathered a large and brilliant court.
What occurred may now be told in the words of the earliest extant
narrator.

‘Thou belongest to my rule, cried the monarch to the rising
tide, and the Jand on which I sit is mine, nor has there been any one
to resist with impunity my empire. I command thee therefore that
thou rise not on my land, nor wet the garments or feet of thy lord.
But the sea flowed on as usual, laving without reverence the king’s feet
and legs. Whereupon jumping back he exclaimed: Let all the inhabi-
tants of the earth know that vain and trifling is the power of kings,
and that none is worthy of the name of king but He whose nod
the heaven, the earth, the sea obey by laws eternal.?!_ And ever after

 

1 Henry of Huntingdon, under 1036 (Cnut died in 1035). There are two
principal versions of the ancedote. That given above is the original, in which
the king is assumed to be teaching somewhat dramatically those about hin, The
other version, which generally places the scene at Westminster, makes the king
address the waves in the arrogance of his heart, thus robbing the incident of its
shred of probability and its poetry.

It will be observed that Huntingdon does not venture upon the place of the
occurrence, nor say where the crown was devoted. Winchester is supposed to
have received the gift, and of course Southampton was the place. As to the
HISTORICAL NOTICES 25

 

this rebuke to flattery Cnut’s royal crown might be seen on the brows
of the crucifix in token of the king’s humility. He died at Shaftesbury
on November 11, 1035, and was buried at Winchester.

On the death of Cnut, Eadward (afterwards the Confessor), the son
of #thelred by Emma, hastened over from Barfleur to Southampton
with forty ships, as a competitor for the crown. He met with no
favour from bis mother at Winchester, who was anxious to secure
everything for Harthacnut, her son by Cnut, then absent in Denmark.
Seeing this, Eadward in his vexation plundered the neighbourhood and
returned the way he came,' while Harold (Harefoot), the bastard son
of the late king by A#lfgifu, his concubine, the daughter of AZlfhelm,
Earl of the Northumbrians, became acknowledged king. He died
in March 1040, but his reign, like that of his successor Harthacnut,
who died in June 1042 from excesses and deep drinking, requires no
notice here?

 

precise spor, there seems to have been no consent. Milner (in 1798) says, ‘ The
memory of the identical spot is still pointed out at Bittern, in Northam harbour,
by the tradition of the inhabitants’ (i, 134). Englefield, writing a little after,
would not accept this, and conjectured another site, and has himself become the
author of atradition, A still more modern ¢radition fixed it on the old beach
line now destroyed by the construction of the docks, the memory of which has
been kept up by Canute Road. But an hotel-keeper of late years yet more exactly
discovered the spot, and to his authority we may just as well bow.

1 Hardyng makes A:lfred, the other son, land at Southampton. But this is
probably a confusion of the above narrative with the compromise of the Witena-
gemot between the claims of Harold and Harthacnut and the unfortunate expedi-
tion of the unhappy A£lfred to Sandwich, which ended in his barbarous murder,
through the treachery of Earl Godwin, at the instigation of Harold. (See Lives
of Ed. Conf. 37, Eng. Chron., sub 1036.) -

2 Before taking leave of the Danes, it may be well to describe, as far as
possible, the old Danish vessel blown to pieces by Mr. Crawshay a few years
ago, and which previously had been known as existing in the Hamble mud. It
lay in the bed of the river, about three-fourths of a mile above Bursledon Bridge,
and had evidently been burnt down to the water’s edge, - The vessel was 130
feet long and clinker built. The timbers were of very large size, and-had attached
to them planking in three thicknesses. In the timbers were round holes for
wooden trunnions, some of which remained, and square iron clamps or rivets.:
(Compare the contemporary English expression, ‘ The Northmen departed in their
natled barks,’ Chron., A.D. 937.) The planking was set to the timbers in
cement, which was freely used in the trunnion holes and at all joints : the seams
were caulked with a mossy fibre. The timbers were of oak. Within the last
seventy years, the old figure-head, ‘a lion with its paws erect ’—as described to
me—was standing outside a cottage, but was ultimately cut up for firewood,
Some fragments of this old vessel are in the Hartley Museum.

In 1848 a vessel of large size and great antiquity was found imbedded in
the mud at Southampton, and a drawing of it was sent to the Archeological
Institute in March 1851. It was supposed by many to be Roman, but was
afterwards described to me by an engineer who saw it as similar to the vessel
at Hamble,
mesday.

26 DOMESDAY.

 

5. The little that can be gathered about the town during the
reign of Eadward the Confessor, who now succeeded, will be found in
the account of Domesday below. Southampton just appears in the
rebellion of Ear] Godwin, but there is nothing of moment to record.

The great survey of landed property made by order of the Con-
queror, and called Domesday from the searching nature of its inquisi-
tion and the final authority with which it would speak,’ was finished
in 1086,

The following is the local account :—

‘In the borough of Hantune the king has four score men less
four in demesne who pay #7 in land-gable,? and paid the same in the
time of King Eadward. Of these, twenty-seven pay 8d. each, two pay
12d. each, and the rest, fifty in number, pay six pence each.?

‘These held land in‘the borough which had been made free of
claims (quietam terram) in the time of King Eadward by the king:

“Odo* of Winchester; Anschil the priest; Chetel, Fulghel, [and]
Tostil, sons of Elric, had sixteen acres of land; Gerin eighteen acres ;
Cheping had three houses free of tax, and now Ralph de Mortemer
holds them; and Godwin four houses, these Bernard Pancevolt
holds.

‘After King William came into England, sixty-five French-born
and thirty-one English-born were lodged in Hantone. These among
them all paid £4 and 6d. for all customs,

‘These underwritten have the custom of their houses in Hantone
by grant of King William:

 

See Dialogus de Scaccario, i. 16.

Land-gable—gable, from gafol, a tax or tribute; Fr. gabelle.

There appears to be an error in the figures somewhere.

Most or all of these old tenants had other holdings in the county, some of
them considerable property, of which they had been dispossessed at the Con-
quest, as in the case of Cheping, whose name frequently occurs in Domesday,
and whose confiscated estates mostly fell, as here, to the powerful Norman,
Ralph de Mortemer, a relative of King William on the mother’s side, and one
of his commanders. So also in the case of Godwin, who held several properties,
in all of which he was succeeded, as here, by Bernard Pancevolt. The three
‘houses’ mentioned above are referred to in the entry about Chilworth, where
they are called ‘hayes in Hantone,’ showing that there was enclosed ground
around them: they were assessed at 18d. Besides the above, Bernard held
three yard-lands at Hardley, which had been turned into forest. It appears from
Domesday that some 140 hides (hide=about I00 to 120 acres) had been
afforested between the time of Eadward the Confessor and that of the survey ;
the greater part of these additions being made, as here, on the borders of the
ancient Ytene: this made up what was called the New Forest. There is no
doubt of the destruction of many habitable places (see Ellis, Introd. to Domes-
day, i. 109; Hallam, Middle Ages, ii, 312 ; Morgan, Normans, 6; Lappenberg,
Normans, 214).

mw Pp
DOMESDAY. ae

 

“G.1 the bishop [has the custom] of one house; the abbey of
Cormeilles, one; the Count of Evreux, two; Ralph de Mortemer,
two; Gilbert de Bretville, two; William son of Stur, two; Ralph de
Todeni, one; Durand de Gloucester, two ; Hugh de Port,? one; Hugh
de Grentemaisnil,? two; the Count of Mortain,* five; Aiulf the
chamberlain, five; Humphrey his brother, one; Osbern Gifart, one;
Nigel® the physician, four; Richerius® de Andeli, four; Richard
Pugnant,’ one; Stephen ® the steersman, two; Turstin® the chamber-
lain, two; Turstin the engineer, two; Anschital! the son of Osmund,
three ; Rainald Croc,™ one.

“The Abbess of Wherwell}? has a fishery and a small plot of land.
Formerly they returned 100 pence, but now ten shillings.’

The burh or borough was the tun, grown in its dimensions,
strengthened in its defences, augmented in its privileges, and recognised
as a distinct unit, of as much account in its degree as the shire of
which it was geographically a part, and according to the completeness
of its organisation it became in the course of time free from shire
Jurisdiction in all respects. In the account before us from Domesday,
the king has in the borough seventy-six tenants in demesne, who paid
the same amount of gable as under the Confessor. These were the

 

1 No doubt Geoffrey de Moubray, Bishop of Coutances, who had been re-
warded with many possessions in various parts of the country,

2 Sheriff of Hants in the time of William I. He held some fifty-five in
Hants, besides property elsewhere.

3 Hugo de Grentmesnil, Earl of Leicester, was nephew of the. Conqueror
and owned most of the borough of Leicester. He had been intrusted (see Free-
man, Norm. Conquest, iv. 74) with the government of Hampshire.

4 The Earl of Mortain held several lands in the county, besides a vast
number of manors in all the south-west counties. He held also Pevensey, but
his palace was at Bermondsey. He was half-brother to William I.

5 Nigel, the Conqueror’s physician, held lands in Neteham hundred,

6 It has been suggested that he was a troubadour attached to the court
(Woodward and Wilks, Hist., ii, 168),

7 Richard Pugniant held Letelie (site of MVet/ey Abbey), in Mansbridge
hundred, It was assessed at one hide, but in King Edward’s time at three, There
was a little church (ecclesiola) there, and besides the open land, a wood for
forty hogs. It was worth an Ioos.

8 Stephen the steersman was connected also with Warwick (Morgan, 207) :
he was no doubt Stephen Fitz Erard, the ‘ captain’ of William’s ship.

® Turstin the chamberlain, and probably also treasurer, held Houghton,
Somborne hundred, in succession to those who held for King Edward,

10 He also succeeded to land formerly held by Godwin at Houghton.

1 In the next column in Domesday this holder is called the son of Croc;
his father may have been the huntsman of the New Forest. He held from the
king a hide of land in Olvestune (Olaf’s town—? Woolston) in Mansbridge
hundred. Tovi held it before. He also had land in the Isle of Wight,

2 The Abbess of Wherwell was sister to Eadward the Confessor, and to her
custody he committed his wife Eadgyth (see Lappenberg, ii, 250).
28 DOMESDAY.

 

burgesses, the free inhabitant householders, fulfilling the duties of their
position in scot and lot, taxation and service, sworn, enrolled, pledged.

Next we have a list of persons who had held land or houses in
the borough, quieted of claims, in the time and by grant of King
Eadward, and who perhaps so continued to hold under King William,
with’ certain specified exceptions. Then we come to the settlements
made by or in the time of King William: these tenants represent the
increase of the town and of the royal revenue from it since the days
of King Eadward. The preponderance of Normans will be observed :
why they altogether paid so much less than the original tenants does
not appear.

A long list follows of those who had the custom of their houses
by a grant of King William. They were mostly great land-holders in
the country, as a glance at the footnotes will show. Their houses may
have been inhabited by persons who, being otherwise qualified, be-
came burgesses by their residency. The phrase occurs in Domesday
that such an one ‘has’ so many ‘burgesses,’ that is, possesses the
property on which they reside. And these powerful landlords at
Hantune may have ‘ possessed’ burgesses though they were not such
themselves—the burgesses being always the resident trading population,
who subsequently came to have supreme authority and government
in the towns owing to their enrolment in strong trading guilds;
and when they had purchased the ferm of their towns, they became
identical in almost every respect with what were afterwards known as
corporations.!

Only a general inference as to the size and population of Hantune
can be drawn from the Domesday account. ‘There were many houses,
if such they might be called, of the poorer classes of which no account
could be taken, whose occupiers enjoyed few or no privileges. Still the
borough appears diminutive when measured by other great towns: all
that can be said is that it was now rising in consequence—the days of
its suffering were over; and while the great majority of the cities and
towns of England had fallen into grievous decay since the coming of
the Normans, Southampton and the few ports leading to the Continent
alone showed signs of prosperity. The growing importance of the
place may be seen in the number of powerful barons and other wealthy
folk who possessed houses or lands within its limit.

After Domesday the earliest historical notices of the town occur
in connection with its ferm: we devote the next section to its history.

 

1 See Merewether and Stephens, Boroughs, pp, 201, 207, 221. So
‘burgesses’ may have possessed property in other places than those of their
own settlement. Thus under the account of Romsey Abbey fourteen ‘ burgesses

of Winchester’ paid 25s.
THE FEE-FARM. 29

 

Section I].—The Fee-Farm.

1. The fee-farm rent was the composition or reserved rent paid to
the king in right of his demesne and in lieu of ancient claims: it
covered also petty customs and fines. The collection of this payment
was sometimes in the hands of a vicecomes or prepositus, sheriff or
reeve, sometimes in those of a wealthy townsman, or even of his wife
or widow (instances will be seen below) ; and to those in charge of the
farm the king’s writs were constantly directed (as will be also seen)
concerning his pecuniary requirements under many different heads.
Hanton.1 Roger the son of Folcher

renders account for the farm of

Hanton, which he had in charge for
the third part of a year.

In wages to the porter and watchman,
1gs. 4d.

In wages to John the controller? of
accounts, Igs, 4d.

In the treasury, £25, 2s.

In livery (wages) to the chaplain of
the castle for last year, £1, 3s. 4d. ;
to the same for the present year, by
writ, gs. 8d.

In transport service by writ of the
king, £2, 7s. 6d.

And there remains of the king’s farm
for the third part of the year,
£68, 8s. 10d.

In the following accounts alms are given from the royal revenue
to the monks of Lire and Cormeilles, who already possessed houses in
Southampton free of dues. In favour of the latter abbey a charter of
Henry II. is preserved by inspeximus (dated 1281) of the Bishop of
Lisieux,’ in which the king confirms to them all their lands, churches,
chapels, tithes, and possessions; and in Southampton he gives them a
charge of £9, 5s., freeing the monks and men of their demesne from all
customs. To Lire he gave a similar charge and favours. The Knights-
Templars had only been introduced into England in the reign of

Stephen, and the payment to them is new.

William Trentegeruns renders account
for the farm of Hanton for half a
year.

In the treasury —

In payments to the same William by
writ of the king, £50.

In alms newly assigned to the Knights
of the Temple, 13s. 4d.

In tithes assigned to the monks of
Lire and Cormeilles, £18.

In wages to John the controller,
£2, Is. 6d.

In wages assigned to the chaplain,
porter, and watchman, £3, 35. 4d.
In works at the castle, by writ of the
king, £7.

In transporting the king’s treasure, by
Wiliam Cummin, 17s,

For cages to transport the king’s hawks
and falcons, 12s. 6d.

In transport service, by writ of the king
and queen, £10, 5s.

And there remains due to the king,
£112 blank.s

 

1 Hunter’s Pipe Roll.
2 Contrataliator.

This John in later years is styled Contrarotulator.

He

controlled the accounts by keeping the counter-tallies.

3 Madox, Formulare, p. 8.
4 Blanched or tried silver,

It was the mark of an ancient holding when a

1155-59
-7I6

39 THE FEE-FARM.

 

Hanton, William Trentegeruns renders
account for £112 of the old! farm of
Hanton,

In the treasury, £12.

And in payments to himself and his wife,

4100 blank. And he is quit.

And the same sheriff renders account of the new farm.

In payments to himself, the sheriff, and
his wife, £242, 8s. blank.

(Payments to the Knights-Templars and
abbeys of LireandCormeillesas before.)

Wages to the controller, £3, os. 10d.

Wages to the chaplain, porter, and
watchman, £4, IIs. 4d.

Works on the castle bridge, £4, 14s. 4d.

Works on the chapel and baily bridge,

£3, 128. 4d.

Making a parapet (bretesche) on the
same bridge, 10s.

In transport of the king, £14, 13s. 4d.

In transports by writ of the king,
L7s 13s. 6d.

On the queen’s board when she came
from Normandy, £1, 7s. 2d.

And for unlading wine and flour,

Ll, 7s. 5d.

Turstin was the sheriff of Hants at this time, William, who is here
rendering his account, being the appointed officer within the borough.

Hantune. William Trentegernuns
(sic) renders account of the farm of
Hanton.

(Payments to the Templars, abbeys of
Lire and Cormeilles, and to the con-
troller as before.)

To Wimarch, mother of Nicholas, land-
tax during life, 3s.

Works on the castle bridge and chapel,
Lb is. 4d.

The king’s board at Brockeherst, by writ
of the king, £16.

For carriage of the king’s deer and
catching them, £1, 19s. 6d.

Passage of the same, £3, 8s. 5d.

Carriage of the king’s wine from Han-
tune to Winchester, 18s.

In passages by king’s writ, £14, 16s. 6d.

And there remains due to the king,
£237, 4s. blank.

In the 17th Henry II., Richard de Limesey rendered account

for #476, 6s. 114d. from the old farm of Hanton, and for £200
blank or tried silver from the new farm. The alms were the same;
the allowance for the chaplain, guard, and porter of Hanton was
£3,118. In the 20th year, Robert de St. Lawrence renders account
for £31, 16s. 4d. of the old farm and £200 of the new. He
claims for the usual allowances, and in addition, for land given to the
lepers of Southampton, #1, 3s. 2d.; for land also near Porteswoda,
given to the canons of St. Denys by writ of the king, 7s. 2d.

 

farm had thus to be rendered, and not merely zzzero, by reckoning. Out of a
certain quantity of silver, twenty shillings were melted down, and the quality of
the rest was judged by this pound which had passed through the purging fires.
It was said ‘to burn’ so many pennyworths, and a similar amount was charged
to every other pound, the sheriff or reeve having to stand by the result (Dialogus
de Scaccario, ed. Stubbs, p. 183, &c.)

1 By the expression ‘old’ and ‘new’ farm is to be understood the residue of
rent from the previous together with the amount for the current year, Ona change
of office, the sheriff or reeve under the term ‘old farm’ gives account of the
balance with which his predecessor had left him to deal (Dialogus, p, 26).
THE FEE-FARM.

31

 

The allowance for the lepers and canons of St. Denys will be

observed.

In the 25th year, Cecilia, his wife, gives in the account for

him.

In the treasury was a balance of £73, 5s.1

The following return belongs to 1 Richard I.

Hanton. Gervase, reeve of Sudhanton,
renders account of £456, 4s. 9d. blank
of the old farm of Sudhanton, and of
£200 blank of the new farm, Inthe
Treasury nothing.

(Payments to Knights-Templars and
the monks of Lire,.the lepers of
Southampton, and the canons of St.
Denys, for land given them, as before.)

And in wages of the royal yacht
or ‘snake’ (esnecca?) during six
passages with treasure before the
coming of our Lord King Richard
into England, by writ of the king,
£45:

And for hiring six ships for the use of
the clerks of the treasurer and of the
chamberlains, by the same _ brief,
£12, 15s. 7d.

And in repairs of the royal yacht when
she was sent to meet the king,
£10, 5s. 4d., on king’s writ, by testi-
mony of Alan Trenchmere.

And in the passage of the Duke of
Saxony, in payment of the esnecca
and other five ships, by writ of the
king, £19, 10s.

Also in three passages in smaller ships

In the same year, Galfrid the

 

with treasure, by the same royal writ,
£10, Ios. 2d,

Also in the passage of Geoffrey, Bishop
of Ely, in two ships, by writ of the
king, £5.

And in the passage of John de Monta-
cute and of the messengers of the
queen to her son, by writ, &c., £2.

And in the passage of the Bishop of
Bayeux and the treasure with him,
by writ, &c., £2, 10s.

For hiring one ship for the carriage of
five hundred bacon hogs and forty
weys (pensas) of cheese, which were
sent into Normandy, by writ of the
king, to supply his castles, £2, 19s.

And in short passages, by writs of the
king, £2, 3s.

And also after Michaelmas this year, in
payment of the esnecca when she
crossed for the first time after the
coronation of King Richard, by writ
of the king, £7, Ios.

And for hiring a ship for the man and
horse armour (ad harnasium) of the
barons who crossed with the same
treasure, by the same writ £2, 17s. 8d.,
&e.

son of Azon rendered account for

the old and new farm of the shire, and among other things charged for

 

1 Exemplification of Town Accounts, from Exchequer Rolls, dated roth April
(1402), 3 H. 1V., in possession of Corporation. Henry Bowet, Bishop of Bath and

Wells, was treasurer.
translated to York, October 7, 1407.

He had been consecrated November 20, 1401, and was

* These swift royal yachts, esnecce, or snakes, were continually crossing from

this port and being allowed for.

In 1166 (12 H.II.), wages when the king

crossed over in Lent, £7, 10s; and in the passage of the King of Scotland,

“7, ios, by writ of the king ;

ao)

in an esnecca and two other ships, £10.

and in the passage of Sir Geoffrey, the king’s son,

In 1176 (22 H.II.), wages of the

esnecca when the king’s daughter crossed over to go into Sicily, by writ, £7, ros. ;
and wages of seven ships which crossed with her, £10, 12s,; and in 1184
(31 H. II.), wages to the esnecca when the Duke of Saxony and the queen
crossed, by writ of Ranulph de Glanville, £7, 10s. (See Nicholas’s Hist. of Royal
Navy, i. 434.) The wages of the captain was 10d, a day (Dialogus, p. 184).

1173-79.

1183-90.

1189-90.
wn pur-
ises fee-
m, IIgg.

32 THE FEE-FARM.'

 

repairs to the houses within the tower! of Hantone, the royal castle and
its precincts being no part of the town fortifications for which the
borough was answerable.

In the 4th Richard I. (1192-93), William Briewere accounted for
£106, 138. 8d. of the farm of Hanton, and in the roth year (1198-99),
the sheriff of the shire accounted for the same amount from the
town farm.?

In 1199 Hugo de Bosco, sheriff of Hants, offered King John twenty
marks to hold the town to farm till the feast of St. Michael next after
the coronation; whereupon it was ordered that if William Briewere
desired to retain the town so long he should pay the twenty marks
which Hugo had promised. Hugo apparently succeeded and was
charged his twenty marks.

2. We have now come to the memorable year in which the town
purchased its fee-farm, obtaining it together with that of the port of
Portsmouth, and all that belonged to the farm of Hanton in the time of
King Henry, for the fine of £100, and the annual rent of £200, pay-
able at the Exchequer each Michaelmas Day.* Thus in 5 John (1204),
the men of Sudhantone—a common term for the burgesses—render
account by the hands of Azo, who was perhaps Alderman, for the
£200 of the farm of Sudhanton with Portesmue: in g John (1208)
they did the same: in the 11th year (1210), they rendered for two
years together, and claimed allowance for #5 each year for land at
Portswood and Kingsland given by King Richard to the canons of
St. Denys.2 In the 17th John (1216), Richard de Leicester, who in
and before 1199 had been controller of the town, as his ancestors were
before him, but had in that year been ousted from his office by Robert
Hardwin, who had fined for it with the king,® answered for the town’s
farm.

It seems probable that the guild-merchant may have negotiated
the purchase of the fee-farm, and that those who accounted at the
Exchequer in the town’s behalf were the officials of the guild. The

 

1 Et in reparandis domibus in Turri de Hantone vj", et xij*, per breve Regis,
et per visum Roberti contrataliatoris.

2 Exemplification of Town Accounts from Exchequer Rolls,

3 Rot. de Oblatis (Hard. 93); Rot. Cancellar., p. 254.

4 See below under charters; also Madox, Excheq., i. 402. ‘Burgenses de
Hamton dant Domino Regi Cl. pro habenda Villa de Suhamton ad firmam in
perpetuum pro CCl, per annum cum portu de Portu Mues, et omnibus aliis per-
tinentiis ad firmam Ville de Hamton pertinentibus, unde eadem villa saisita
fuit tempore Regis Henrici. Et habent cartam Domini Regis inde de predicta
firma respondenda ad festum S. Michaelis ad Scaccarium Domini Regis’ (Oblat.
1 John, m, 19).

5 Exemplification, &c.; see also Madox, Ex. i, 409,

® Abbrev, Plac, 1 John; Madox, Ex, i, 202,
THE FEE-FARM. 33

 

same amount of fee-farm remained chargeable, with an increase to be
presently mentioned, till the 22nd Henry VIII. (1530-31).

In the 2nd Henry III. (November 29, 1217) we find that the
town had been taken into the king’s hands, the Earl of Salisbury, who
had previously received a grant of it, being required to withdraw his
bailiffs: the farm was also ordered to be accounted for as usual at the
Exchequer! At this period the town, or city, as it is called by a slip,
is said to have been wholly in the king’s demesne, and those who had
settlements in it held directly from the crown.?

In the 4th Edward I. (1276) the Exchequer Roll records a pardon
to the burgesses for certain transgressions—apparently the wounding a
king’s bailiff in the execution of his duty—on account of which the
king had seized the town into his hands by the judgment of his court,
and had restored it (May 22) to the townsmen, upon a fine, for the
usual farm, but with an increment of forty marks (#26, 13s. 4d.),?
a circumstance‘ referred to by an Act of 22nd Henry VIII. (1530-31),
where it is also stated that the increment remained till the passing
of that Act.

Accordingly, in the 5th Edward I. (1277) the farm is distinctly
stated to be £200, together with the mew increment of #26 and one
mark (13s. 4d.), as contained in the preceding roll. So in the follow-
ing years and reigns, after deducting the appointed alms the farm
always produced £200, igs. 8d.

The apparent exceptions arise from the fact that the increment
was not always included in the farm, and the whole was sometimes
apparently spoken of in general terms. Thus in a lease of the customs
granted by Peter de Lyons (no doubt the mayor) and twenty others to
Robert le Mercer and seventeen others (Mich. 30 Edward I. 1302),
the farm of the town is put at £200. The members belonging to the
town of Southampton are said to be Portemue, Hamele, Linnentone,
Scharprixe, Kyhaven, and Rumbridge;® and in the lawsuit with
Lymington (17 Edward II. 1324), the mayor, bailiffs, and community

 

1 Rot. Litt. Claus. sub dat.

2 Testa de Nevill, p. 236 (time of Hen, III, and Ed. I.)

8 Exemplification of Town Accounts, &c., also Pat. 4 Ed, I. m. 23 and m.
21; see also Rot, Parl. i. 58 a, &c., where, however, the increase is stated to
be £20.

# In the contemporary Rolls just referred to, it is not stated that the incre-
ment was added on account of the transgression, but it may be a safe inference,
The king’s houses in the town were excepted from the general farm to the

burgesses, and the king would dispose of them as he chose.
5 bid.

6 Original indenture of lease. The farm is put at the same amount in the
29 and 31 Edward III, (1301, 1304).

Cc

Increase,
1276,
te-

‘Se

34 THE FEE-FARM.

 

of Southampton say that they hold the town and port of the town
from beyond Hurst to Langstone at the annual farm of £220.)

In the town books the amount of the farm is variously stated,
but this arises from the payments having been generally made by
instalments, which were constantly in arrears or only part paid up.
Sometimes also the alms and liveries were included, sometimes the
reverse. Thus in 1438 the sum of #225 was paid for the farm, the
seneschal receiving 6s. 8d. for carrying it to London? In 1441 the
sum of £200 was paid; in 1447 the farm was correctly set forth
in the charter to be 340 marks (#226, 138. 4d.); about 1512 it
appears as £218,3 which will not tally with the petition and Act
of 1530-31.

3. The burgesses were occasionally released from full payment on
special grounds, such as the cost of the fortifications (see below), or
on woeful representations of their condition. Thus the town being
constantly, by its own representation, on the point of financial collapse,
Edward IV. and Richard III., at the commencement of their reigns
(1462 and 1484), remitted arrears of fee-farm, among other matters, in
general pardons to the mayor and burgesses.* In the early years of the
next century the borough seems to have been systematically two or
three years behindhand in its payment.

4. Before finishing the account of the farm, we may turn to some
of the charges upon it. The practice of drawing by writ upon the
royal dues has been noticed above, the sum advanced being placed to
the town’s credit at the Exchequer. Thus the bailiffs were frequently
directed to advance money in gifts from the king or in payment to
his soldiers, as in 1215, when, under the oversight of William Briewere,
they were ordered to find money for the king’s soldiers and archers who
had come from Poitou to Winchester. Writs for repairs constantly
occur:* thus in 1224 for the gutters of the king’s chamber at South-
ampton. Among the more miscellaneous objects we have the carriage
of a big fish from Portsmouth to Oxford (1224), the carriage for Geoffrey
de Lucy of five cartloads of lead for work at the castles of Guernsey
and Jersey (1226). Wine orders were very constant: thus they were
ordered to purchase from the men of Savaric de Mauleon at South-

 

1 See Madox, F. B,, 220-222,

2 Steward’s books,

8 «Md, that the hole charge for the fee-ferme of the towne of S. amountith
yerely unto the summe of ccxviij", whereof is paid yerely to the king’s grace
cliij' : to the queen’s grace yerely xlvj", to Shene yerely ix! vs., to Fodringay
yerely viij" xvs., Summa totalis ccxviij,’—Boke of Remembrances, f. 1.

* Bundle of pardons (Corp. Arch.)

® See further under Bailiffs, Castle, Trade, &c,
THE FEE-FARM. 35

 

ampton a quantity of wine for the use of the king’s chamberlain and
soldiers going to Poitou (1224).7

The payments to religious houses continued. The Master and Alms.
College of St. Mary and All Saints at Fotheringay, founded in 1411
by Henry IV., succeeded to the £8, 15s. which had formerly been paid
to Lire; and the priory of Jesus of Bethlehem at Shene, commenced
by Henry V. in 1414, received the £9, 58. formerly given to Cor-
meilles,?

The town has often been bestowed in dowry upon queens of Settlem:
England. It had been thus settled for life on Queen Eleanor, wife of ae
Henry III. and mother of Edward I.; and in the 13th year of the
latter monarch (1285) the burgesses were charged with various trans-
gressions in withholding the royal dues from the king and queen, on
account of which the town had been taken into the king’s hands.

Queen Eleanor died in 1292, and on September 10, 1299, King
Edward endowed at the church-door his second wife, Margaret of
France, with the farm of the town, which was to yield her £201, 3s.
ad., besides the alms and allocations. He also gave her a long list of
manors, castles, and towns, among which were the castle of South-
ampton, the manor and park of Lyndhurst, with the New Forest
and the bailiwick and hundred of Redbridge: these last items were
to bring in £150.

Queen Margaret died 14th February (11 Ed. II.) 1318, and Isa-
bella of France, wife of Edward II. and mother of Edward III., next
enjoyed this £201, 3s. 2d.4

Joanna of Navarre, queen of Henry IV., had a jointure of 150 marks
from the farm by patent dated igth April (1 Hen. IV.) 1400: in-
dentures between the queen and the town as to her payment also
exist bearing date 12th November (1 Hen. VI.) 1422.5 She died in
1437.

Among the provisions of dowry for Margaret of Anjou on her
marriage with Henry VI. in May 1445 was the grant of £1000
per annum from the great and little customs of the town; and in 1454
(32 Hen. VI.) an annuity of £100 from the fee-farm was confirmed
to her.®

 

1 Numerous such examples are to be found in the printed Close Rolls of
John and Henry III.

2 Steward’s books, 1485, 1457, &c.

8 Exemplification of Town Accounts from Excheq., &c., 11 Ed, II. Rot,
Parl., i 18, &c.; Rymer, ii. 854 b.

4 Abbrev. Rot. Orig., 14 Ed, III. (1340). See under Castle and Burning
of Town,

5 Corp, Archives, ° Rot, Parl, v. pp. 120, 133, 262,
ul
shold.

reat

36 THE FEE-FARM.

 

Ten years Jater the usual annuity of £46 out of the farm was
resumed by Act of Parliament (4 Ed. IV.) 1464, and in 1466 the
king granted it to Elizabeth, his queen.? Three years after the mayor
had to borrow £7 of Robert Blewet to make up the allowance? In
1471 her majesty received more than the usual grant, some arrears
being included: three years after the exact sum was forwarded. In
1478 Thomas Stydolf, the queen’s receiver-general, acknowledged to
receiving the same,‘ the like amount being continued by grant of
5th March (1 Hen. VII.) 1486. The town made an effort to pay the
queens with some regularity, even when it was lapsing into a chronic
state of arrears about its farm. This is seen in the accounts of 1501,
1507, and other years. In the reign of Henry VIII. similar payments
were made; and in 1605 the same settlement was made on his queen
by James I.°

But the chief charges on the fee-farm usually went in other direc-
tions; as, for instance, to the household. Thus a writ dated roth
December (1 Ed. IV.) 1461 directed the sheriff of the town to pay to Sir
John Fogge, treasurer of the royal household, the sum of €133, 6s. 8d.
from the farm.’ These payments for the household varied consider-
ably, and were subsequently made a matter of regulation by Parliament
in 1450, when the sum of £26, 18s. 6d. was paid by the town, but in
1495 the sum of £154.85 Then grants were made to great nobles for
various purposes, as, e.g., to Cardinal Beaufort, the king’s uncle, in
1439 a grant of £10, 14s. 6d. per annum for the Hospital of St. Cross,
Winchester. But passing to larger amounts:

On December 14, 1461, only four days after the writ above cited for
the treasurer of the household, an annuity of £154 from the farm was
confirmed to Richard Nevill,® the ‘stout Earl Warwick,’ the greatest
man in England. Payments to this nobleman continued till he fell at
Barnet on Easter Day 1471, though not without the usual amount of
confusion and delay. On one occasion (1469-70) the mayor himself
had to ride up to London ‘to rekyn w' the erle of Warwicke” He
‘was ther xij days, for the wheche xij days the costes comyth toe
L* vj*;’ and in the following year an account was presented of money
given and lent to the town in ‘contentacion of the fee-ferme.’ The
account of 1461 shows the mayor, Robert Bagworth, intrusted with
the payment of £20 from the farm to the Dowager-Countess of
Shrewsbury, cousin of the Earl of Warwick.!

 

1 Rot. Parl, v. p. 518. 2 Liber Remembranc. H., Rot, Parl, v. 626,
8 Steward’s books, 1470-71. 4 Steward’s books,
5 Ibid, 6 Town Journal,

Lib. Remembrance. H., f. 32. ® Rot. Parl, v. 174 b, 3 vi. 499 D.
Lib, Remembrance. H., ff. 32, 33. 10 Steward’s books,

en
THE FEE-FARM. 37

 

The next settlement, to the same amount (#154), was made upon
William FitzAlan, Earl of Arundel. Payments to him occur fre-
quently, in a bewildering amount of small instalments, till his death in
1487 (3 Hen. VII.) The town sometimes tendered a payment in wine,
and occasionally the Earl would draw upon them for his friends, e.g.,
for the Abbess of Amesbury a hogshead of wine, and similarly for
many others. Sometimes his letters are pathetic as to his non-pay-
ment, always expressing the great moderation of his demands, but
begging his ‘right trusty and well-beloved friends and neighbours, the
mayor and his brethren,’ to bear in mind his great charges (Jan.—Nov.
1482). Two years later he specifies the charges, ‘as well in setting
forth to the sea our right entirely beloved son Sir John Arundel, Knt.,
by commandment of our sovereign lord the king, as in finding and
sending certain great number of men diffensibly arrayed unto the
king’s highness, when we shall be by his grace commanded ;’ he con-
cludes by requesting that they will forthwith ‘send safely unto us our
said duties without further delay’ (April 1484).4

5. It will be gathered that the town was occasionally put to
straits in producing its rent. It was frequently obliged to resort to
Joans and gifts from wealthy individuals. Thus, in Hilary term 1457,
seventeen sums were advanced towards the fee-farm, making a total
of £42, 6s, 8d.2_ In 1461 we find one of the chief burgesses thrown
into the Fleet at the suit of John, Lord Wenlock, of the Privy
Council, for the ‘ rerage’ of the fee-farm; and on July 24, ‘Symkyn
Patrycke and John Gryme, by the commandment of the mayor and of
all the worshipful burgesses of the town, rode to London to labour for
the worship of the town and the welfare of Richard Gryme, the which
was in the prison of the Fleet for the debt of the said town.’ The
sum of £20 was paid for his deliverance.? The case of this burgess
illustrates one of the positions of Madox, that anciently a corporate
community might be made answerable for the trespass or debt of par-
ticular members, and particular members for the community ;* and
the visit of the burgesses to Richard Gryme falls in with the Guild
ordinances (No. 11) by which it was provided that any guildsman in

 

} Steward’s books and letters affixed. 2 Steward’s books.

3 Steward's books, 1461; Lib. Remembranc. H.,f. 25 b. Item, lent to Richard
Gryme for his delyverans ayenst my lord Wanlok, xx',

4 The instance given by Madox shows that the townsmen of Southampton
(13 John) had got into their hands a large sum of the king’s money which came
from Ireland, when the two bailiffs, Roger Swein and William Anglicus, together
with six principal men—Simon de St. Lawrence, Robert the Talliator, Denys
Fortin, Walter Fleming, Roger Bonhait, and Thomas de Bulehus—were charged
with the money, and found pledges to answer the king (F. B., p. 158).

How tt
farm w
raised,
28 THE FEE-FARM.

 

prison, in whatever part of the kingdom, should be visited at the
common expense, and his release procured if possible.

The same year, John Walker, the sheriff, was summoned to the
Exchequer, whither he rode at the town’s cost for 20s., and was
amerced in the sum of £3, 6s. 8d., which was rendered at the hands
of John Ingoldsby, afterwards apparently one of the Barons of the
Exchequer, who was repaid by the town.’

tion. 6. Returning now to the amount of the fee-farm: in 22 Henry
VIII. (1530-31) a permanent remission of forty marks (£26, 138. 4d.)
was made to the burgesses on petition alleging their great expenses
and the decay of trade But in 1533 the Corporation wrote to
Cromwell urging again their great charges in the defence of the town
against the sea and on the walls, begging that their arrears ‘may be
stalled,’ that they might have a chance of paying in future; as yet they
had derived no benefit from past favours. By the 28th Henry VIII.
(1537) matters had got so much worse, that in January Thomas Lyster,
the mayor, under fear of a process out of the Exchequer and the
seizure of the town’s liberties, hal recourse to the merchant Nicolyne
Dogra, called also Demagrine, who came to his temporary relief; and
in October the following year the same merchant advanced #200 for
the farm, receiving in security West Hall,* a locally noted tenement,
which stood on thesite of the present Grammar School. By the 3rd
Edward VI. (1549) the sum of £1844, 1s. 6d. was owing to the Exche-
quer; of this total, the amount of £1044, 1s. 6d. was remitted in the
following year (1550) upon the Corporation entering into a bond for
£1000 to pay the remaining #800 at the rate of £100 per annum.5

edto 7. But in the 6th Edward VI. (1552) the important and permanent
reduction was made that, under certain conditions, the rent should be
but £50.° Still in September (3 Eliz.) 1561 we find the town indebted
to many persons in various sums, and especially to John Caplen, who
at the request of the Corporation undertook to receive and administer
all sums that might be due to the town within the next two years, and
therefrom (1) to pay the fee-farm, the officers’ wages, and other ordi-
nary charges; next (2) to satisfy the other creditors; and (3) the said
John Caplen, ‘of his good natuer and accustomed goodness is con-
tente that his own dette shalbe laste payed.’ No repairs were to be
executed for the town or any money transactions negotiated without

 

1 See Guild Ordinances given below. Richard Gryme returned home to enjoy
the sweets of freedom in his garden in East Street—‘on the south part of the said
street within the gate’—for which he paid 12d. (1469); a few years after he
appears as Lieutenant of Hampton (1474-75).

2 Steward’s books. 3 Stat. Realm, ili. 351, 352.

4 Boke of Remembrances, ff. 37, 41 b.

5 Bond (among bundle of pardons), Audit House, ®€ See under Charters.
THE FEE-FARM. 39

 

the cognisance of John Caplen.t Loans from the burgesses in pay-
ment of the fee-farm not uncommonly occur.

The above reduction to £50 was confirmed by the last governing
charter, that of 27th June 1640 (16 Charles I.), on the same condi-
tions.2. These were, that the petty customs should not have amounted
in any year to £200; that no ships called ‘ carracks of Genoa’ or
‘valleys of Venice’ should have visited the port, and that a certificate
should accordingly be sent each year to the Lords of the Treasury and
the Barons of the Exchequer. Certificates of the amount were regu-
larly sent, but in 1803 an Act of Parliament was passed (43 Geo. III.,
cap. 21) abolishing the payment of petty customs to the Corporation,
and giving them instead one-fifth of the port dues to be received by
Commissioners created under the Act. In consequence of this, on
November 9, 1804, they transmitted to the Treasury and Exchequer a
certificate reciting the Act and affirming the extinguishment of the
petty customs. This certificate was rejected for want of stating the
amount received in lieu of petty customs; and on 23d November
another was forwarded by the Corporation estimating the sum set
apart from wharfage, cranage, anchorage, groundage, storage, &c., at
one-fourth of the sum paid them by the Commissioners, or one-
twentieth of the Commissioners’ net receipts.2 The certificate is still
prepared in the same way every year, and each gth of November it is
most humbly signified in the prescribed quarters that no ships called
‘carracks of Genoa’ or ‘ galleys of Venice’ have arrived at the port.
In this way £150 of the old fee-farm is formally got rid of: it remains
to follow the reduced farm of #50.

It had been paid to the Crown from the time of Edward VI. to the $

old b

Comm

death of Charles I. Under the Commonwealth it was sold, September wealth

29, 1650, together with the fee-farm of the city of Hereford (#42),
by the Commissioners appointed for selling the fee-farm rents of the
late Crown of England under the Act of the then present Parliament,
to Azariah Husband and his heirs for the sum of £785, 11s. 8d.4 After
the Restoration, this, with other Crown properties, was resumed; and
on the 26th Charles IT. (1674), the £50 fee-farm of the town of South-

ampton was sold to Sir Robert Holmes, who became the purchaser of Sold b

several other rents at the same time; the following note occurring at the e
end of the list of properties conveyed in the ‘ Enrolment of Sale’ :—

 

1 Boke of Remembrances, f. go.

2 Yet the Town Journal states that, October 3, 1656.(8 Charles 1].—Common-
wealth), Roger Pedley, the sheriff, demanded of the town £200 for the fee-farm,
which he was commanded to levy by writ of Exchequer. Tnere must have been
some informality on the town’s part.

3 Journal, Nov. 9, 1804, &c. ; Report on Municip. Corp., 1835.

* Counterpart deed of sale (Record Office).

harle:
40 THE FEE-FARM.

 

‘All which said several rents are discharged by an indenture of bargain and
sale, dated the 31st Jany. in the 26th year of the reign of King Charles II., a.D.
1674-[75], for and in consideration of the sum of £9751. 19.0 paid into the receipt
of his Majesty’s Exchequer, as by a tally dated 2oth day of Oct. 1674 may appear.
Because the same are sold and conveyed unto Sir Robert Holmes Knt. his heirs
and assigns for ever, and so for their only use and behoof, and not upon any other
trust or confident whatsoever.’ !

The fee-farm next passed to John Garland, Esq., and his heirs,
being sold and conveyed by the trustees for sale of the Crown fee-farm
rents,?2 under indenture enrolled in Chancery, dated 5th December
(33 Chas. II.) 1681. It was afterwards conveyed to Thomas Osborne,
first Duke of Leeds, in whose family it remained till 1737, when it was
sold by Thomas, Duke of Leeds, great-grandson of the above, to Ann,
Countess of Salisbury, widow, for a consideration of £1500.

The Countess of Salisbury had lately built, at her own costs, a
schoolhouse and residence for the purposes of a ‘charity school,’ in
which twenty female children of the parish of Hatfield should be taught
to read and sew,—a provision which it was supposed would satisfy the
needs of the parish; and she now purchased this fee-farm with a view
to the endowment of the school, joining in a tripartite indenture,
made December 10, 1737 (11 Geo. II.), with James, Ear] of Salisbury,
her eldest son, of the second part, and the Honourable William Cecil,
her younger son, and Matthew Lamb, Esq. of Lincoln’s Inn, of the
third part, by which the site of the school premises, together with all
the buildings erected on the ground, and this fee-farm for an endow-
ment, were granted, bargained, and sold for nominal sums to the above
persons of the third part, and their heirs, as trustees for the school.
The buildings are described as fronting westward to the street leading
through the town, and eastward to Hatfield Park. The trustees were
directed to apply £30 per annum for the salary of the mistress, £10
for clothing the children, and the remaining #10 for the taxes that
should be assessed on the fee-farm rent and on the premises, and
towards repairs. Such is the history of the old town rent to the pre-
sent time, the circumstances of which have been entirely forgotten,*
though the fact of a settlement on the charity school appears in the
Journal of October 28, 1825, and again at the end of the petty customs
certificate of Michaelmas 1836, thus: ‘Ordered that the Treasurer of
the Borough do pay to the Trustees of Hatfield’s charity the sum of
£40 .2,.0, the remainder of the fee-farm rent, land tax deducted’ A
similar order occurs under November 24, 1837.

 

1 Inrolment of Sale of Fee-farm Rents (Land Revenue Office).
2 A link is evidently wanting, which I am unable at present to supply.
3 Close Roll, 11 Geo. II. (1737), No. 16.

4 See the Report of Municip. Corp. Commission, 1835, where it is stated that
little or nothing is known on the matter.
 

   

a ee ae
Da reservoir |
mary Stone v4

  
     
        
  
      

Bannisters

=a

‘
¢
ar

  
 

nduil Hede vo
; NoRrrHam a
est | a
tchards A jf Blackworth
Se es _Lepers ae Hegstone © Ny
ossionns Hospital ve
Magdalens

{

Admiralty

Gods House Gallows”
a

1 Zower

    

5

bod S
Woolston
F

To tre Priae 4A]

 
CHAPTER: Df
LOCAL AND DESCRIPTIVE.

SecTion I.

' Liberties or Precincts: Account of Boundaries and Lucroachments.

“THE present extensive! precinct was granted by King John, as is 1199.
* set forth below (but I never saw his grant); and in 38 Henry III.
* it is described as under :—

“« This is the inquest taken by twenty four lawful men [here follow the 1254
‘names of the jury] in the 38th year of King Henry, son of King John, at
‘© * Shyrlegh before Sir Ernald de Bosco, at that time justice in eyre to the
“king’s majesty, who say upon their oath that this is the bound and limit
‘between the forest of Bere and the king’s majesty’s town of Suthampton:
‘ viz. From Achard’s bridge (now Four-post bridge) as the way lies northward
‘by the crosses to Cut-thorn, and from Cut-thorn to Burlestone, and from
* ¢ Burlestone to the water course of Furzewells as it goes down to the river
‘© ¢ Vtchen.2 Within which bounds and limits of the liberties of the king’s
‘¢ © majesty’s town of Suthampton the canons of S. Denys have and hold a
“© © certain wood called Portswood by a grant from Richard, formerly king of
«+ England, in free, full, and perpetual alms. And this wood is without the
“ « Regard and exempt from impeachment of waste. For which wood and the
“© Jand called Kingsland the aforesaid king remitted one hundred shillings of
“¢ * his farm of the town of Suthampton.’

“ The above boundary was confirmed,? 7 Edward IV., by Henry 1467.
Bourchiere, Ear] of Essex, justice in evre. In his confirmation the
above inquest is recited verbatim.

€

n

ce

 

1 In 26 Henry II. (1180) William Briewere was made forester of the forest
of Bere, with power to take any one transgressing therein between the ‘ bars’ of
Hampton and the gates of Winchester (Dugd. Bar., i. 7¢0). Dr. Speed, who
identifies the position of the ‘bars’ with that of the Bargate—which is by no
means certain; the original Bargate was standing at the date of the above
grant, and the ‘bars’ may have been at the entrance of the town’s liberties—
takes this appointment as an indication that the town precincts were not then
as extensive as subsequently.

2 Viz. : ‘De ponte de Acardo sicut via extendit se per cruces versus Aqui-
lonem usque Cuthorne, et a Cuttethorn usque ad Burlestone, et de Burlestone
usque ad aqueductum de Fursewelle sicut descendit in Ychens,’— Oak Book, fol. 56.

3 Liber Niger, fol. 108.
stern
ndary,

42 THE LIBERTIES OR PRECINCTS.

 

“In 4 Henry VII. the precincts are described as under : 1—

‘© ¢ The perambulacon of the franchies of the toune of Suthampton graunted
by King John 2 and confermed by mayny other noble kings his successours,
and of late the bounds of the same franchies by vertue of a writte oute of the
eschequier of the saide graunte, and remaynyng in the Audite house, sett
oute by Thomas Overey as hereafter followith,

“¢ Item, first, fro Barred gate, the north gate of Southampton unto Acorn
““* [otherwise Acard’s] brig and crosse, west north west: and fro the Acorn
“« brig and crosse unto the Hode crosse, north, thorough the village called Hill:
“© and fro the Hade crosse to the Cutted-thorne crosse, suth suth est: and fro
“* the Cutthed-thorne crosse to the Berell stone crosse, est, at Burger's strete
“ ende, and so along Burger’s strete and thorough Kinghern [otherwise Lang-
“«* herne] yate unto Haven stone in Hilton upponne the water side, est: and
‘fro Haven stone along as the water lyeth unto Hegstone at Blackworth,
“*suth: and fro Hegstone [latterly Millstone] as the water lyeth to Ichen-
“«* worth [z.e. by the cross house] suth; and fro Ichenworth as the water lyeth
“* to the Mesyne due [Maison Dieu] yate of Suthampton, west.’ ”

a

“cc

It is difficult to reconcile what have become the modern municipal
and parliamentary limits with those given in the documents above: a
glance at the map will show what the differences are. It remains,
then, to examine the old landmarks. The charters will not help us,
as they only determine from time to time that the precincts are to be
the same as usual, that is, no doubt, as described in the old inquisitions,
which are no further explained.

We take first the western boundary. “ According to this boundary
“ the east side of the village of Hill should be within the jurisdiction
“of the town. That point was disputed so early as 20 Henry VIII.
‘““ [1528-29], for in the steward’s accounts for that year there is an
“article charged for a fee® to counsel concerning that business,
“ but how it ended then I do not find. Some years after this right
“was tried at Salisbury assize, and the Corporation, not having
“ exercised their jurisdiction there for many years, were cast upon
“a non-user.”

Unfortunately there is little to be added to this concise statement.
Many years subsequently, namely, in 1571, the ‘controversy’ with
Mr. Whitehead about the common, as also with Lady Dawtrey, was
ordered to be tried at law, the nature of the trial being not quite

 

1 Lib, Rememoranc. BB., f. 1 b.

2 In the ‘Boke of Remembrances,’ last page, in a copy belonging to the
reign of Henry VIIL., the grant is said to have been made in 1 John (1 199).

3 ‘Costs for the meeting of the Town’s counsel and mistress Whitehede for
the variance of our liberties in Hill lane.’ The details of the dinner follow, over
which the lady of the manor and the lawyer discussed the point; lastly comes,
‘Item to master Wintershull for his labour hither v*’ Several times before
this, as in 1526-27, we find the town repairing ‘the king’s high way at Hill’
(Steward’s book ; Temp, T. Overey, sub anno).
THE LIBERTIES OR PRECINCTS. 43

 

‘clear. But in the spring of 1596 a suit, apparently in point, was
“vet depending undecided in her Majesty’s Court of Wards and
Liveries? between Master Whitehead and the town. ‘He seemeth
to lay challenge,’ say the court leet jury, ‘unto all or the most part
of the common pasture belonging to us and others the inhabitants,
leading up within our liberties and perambulation towards Cut-thorn,
as yet time out of memory ever enjoyed, held, and occupied by the
inhabitants of Southampton without any lawful challenge or impeach-
ment.” They therefore think it right to define again their liberties,
which they do much in the form of 1488.

Four years after (1600) we find them presenting that ‘ the vanes at
Hill bridge doe not stand as in times past... . We challenge our
jiberties on the east side of Hill street, and the inhabitants there
ought to do their suit and service at our Law day, as we suppose, our
perambulation considered and regarded which leadeth us hereunto.’
The same presentment was made in the following year.

A few years later, namely, October 1608, a letter was ordered to be
written to Sir Henry Whitehead ‘in answer to his concerning the
common and a hogshead of wine which he demandeth as due to him
yearly for the Friar’s head, which as yet to this [house’s] memory was
never paid;’ but as early as 1478 there had been an agreement of some
kind about the spring between the burgesses and Master Whitehead.’

In 1611 Hill is again stated to be within the liberties, and the old
complaints about the vanes occur; also the jury present, as they have
done before, the need of a ‘court of survey’ for viewing all the town’s
lands and writings, that they may not only know but enjoy their
rights.

In 1651 a trial occurred in reference to Banister’s? farm, the only
notice of which in the town books, as far as observed, is the following,
which is fragmentary :—

‘Friday, March 19, 1651-52.—Whereas a suit was commenced and brought
by Sir Edward Banister in the name of Richard Symes, tenant of Banister’s
farm, against James Needle and James Flower, collectors of the Parliament
taxes in the ward of All Saints, within the town of Southampton, for taking a
distress upon the land of the said farm for the assessments charges thereupon ;
and by order of the Court of Upper Bench at Westminster where the said suit
was commenced, the trial of the said suit was ordered to be at New Sarum, in
the county of Wilts, at the assizes there, and the point in issue was by that order
to try whether Banister’s farm were in the county of Hants or in the county of
the said town: the town of Southampton in defence of the said suit and in main-
tenance of the ancient bounds of the said town and county did, among other

 

1 Steward’s books.
2 Under December 1474 the sum of eight shillings was given to the town-clerk
‘to pay unto Whytehede for the matter of Banestres Court.’
44 THE LIBERTIES OR PRECINCTS.

 

evidences, produce at the said assizes before the Lord Chief Justice Rolle these’
writings or evidences hereafter written, the true copies whereof are as follow :—
Henricus Bourochier, comes Essexie et Justiciarius itinerans omnium forestarum,

&c,’

The document is the confirmation of 1467-68 mentioned above ;
but no other ‘ writings or evidences’ are given, nor is anything said as
to the date or issue of the trial.

It is certain, however, that the Corporation continued to lay claim
to the largest boundary. Thus about the date of the above entry,
namely, at the court Jeet in 1652, they present—

“That the metes, bowndes and precincts of this Towne and County are and
ought to extend first from the Bargate . . . unto Hood Crosse, w® standethe
in the great comon wtout the comon of Hampton, about [blank] paces from the

corner of the hedge of the s¢inclosed comon of Hampton w® waye from Acorn
bridge to the aforesaid Hood crosse lyeth northward through a village caled

Hill,’ &e.

They complain at the same time that many great annoyances
arising within the precincts cannot be inquired of, nor the penalties
levied for the same, ‘for want of an officer within this Towne antiently
called the Lord Mayor of the Buckinges, wherefore wee desire that
suche an officer be yearly choasen at the accustomed tyme accordinge
to the antient custom of this Towne, and that the order belonginge to
the s* office may, by the authorety of this Coorte, be revived and con-
firmed for tyme to com.’

The presentments of the court leet jury slightly vary with the
opening of the next century. From about 1704 they present that the
metes and bounds ‘ ought to extend through a village called Hill,”—as
if that line were being gradually abandoned,—and thence by the long
route through Langherne gate and by the Haven Stone to the Sandy
Gate of the town—a corruption, after various transformations, for the
“Maison Dieu Gate,’ which having first appeared in the latter half of
the seventeenth century, is perpetuated in the court leet books of the
present day. But from the year 1713 the form ‘through the village’ is
dropped, and the boundary line is drawn ‘northward from the village

 

1 Dr. Speed in his first book presented to the Corporation (p. 35) says :—
“‘ But these ancient bounds [those described above in the document 4 Henry
“VII, 1488-89] are at present something reduced, for the Corporation having
“ neglected to exercise their jurisdiction at Hill for some time, and afterwards
“ attempting to recover it, were cast at Salisbury Assize upon a non-user; so
“ that the rivulet which runs from the common to Achard’s bridge is now reckoned
“ the boundary.

“ ap, 1651.—There was a trial at Salisbury Assizes to determine whether
‘ Bannister’s farm was within the county of the town orno, A.2,—It was

* determined in the negative.”
THE LIBERTIES OR PRECINCTS. 45

 

called Hill? In 1748 the name of Sidford is joined with that of Hill,
and from that date to the present time the bounds have been formally
presented each year as extending northward ‘from a village called Hill
and Sidford,’

The annual perambulations, while they lasted, continued to be
made along the brook, as if Bannister’s Court were still within the
liberties, and the freedom of that district from borough dues seems to
have been regarded as a prescriptive immunity. The Commissioners
of 1832 adopted the brook along its whole course as the boundary of
the parliamentary borough in the map annexed to their Report,?
and by the Boundary Act (2 & 3 Will. IV. cap. 64) the parliamentary
borough and the district called the town and county of the town of
Southampton were to be conterminous. On the other hand, the
Municipal Corporation Commissioners in 1835 excluded the disputed
district from the county or municipal borough, and the Boundary
Commissioners of 1868 have affirmed the exclusion in the map affixed
to their Report, and the line is so drawn in the beautiful maps of the
Ordnance Survey. Thus the question of the western boundary now
rests.

Passing to the north-west angle of the borough limits, we observe an Boundar
ancient boundary stone standing, as the court leet books describe it, oo
about a hundred paces to the north of the enclosed common. This is
the Hode Cross mentioned in every description of the franchises as the
stone to which the boundary line stretched northward from Acorn
Bridge, and through which it passed S.S.E. to Cutthorn. There was,
therefore, at this part, according to the ancient inquisitions, land which
formerly belonged to the town outside the present municipal and
parliamentary limits which are simply those of the enclosure. This
part of the common seems to have been hedged and ditched in 1577,
not altogether to the satisfaction of the court leet jury if it be referred
to in the following extract, which gives a curious picture of the helpless
way in which matters seem to have been overlooked. In 1579 they
present—

‘ That whereas of late daies theare hathe bin a peece of our comon and heathe
ditched and hedged and enclosid in and planted wi™ willows under the name of
a shadow for our cattel w‘ have hitherto many yeres past prosperid verie well
as the comon was beefore, wherefore we dessire yt may be pulled down agayne
and levelid as before, for we doubt that in short time yt wilbe taken from the
common to some particuler man’s use, w weare lamentable and pitiefull and
not sufferable ; for as our auncestors of theire greate care and travell have provided

that and like other many benefyts for us theire successors, so we thinck it o*
dwetie in conscience to keep, uphold, and maintaine the same as we founde yt

 

 

 

1 Boundary Report, 1832, p, 229.
sth-east
ndary.

46 THE LIBERTIES OR PRECINCTS.

 

for o” posteritie to come wout diminishing eny part or parcel from yt, but rather
to augment more to yt yf yt may be.’

Immediately they continue :—

‘ Also wee fynd that theare ys a great peice of our sayd comon and heathe
leaft unclosed from the rest by Hoode crosse, for what purpose wee know not, but
we doubt that in continuance of time yt will [be] quit lost, and so by littell and
littel [we shall] loose and diminish oure Lyberties w% we so long time have
enjoyed w‘" weare greate pitie,’

Similar presentments were made in other years, e.g., in 1580, 1587,
1591, with the like warning of there being ‘ lefte unclosid of the com-
mon at Hoode crosse a great quantytie of grounde, w™ being left out
in tyme to come may be lost yf good regard be not had thereof’ Juris-
diction over the larger boundary has always been claimed, as it is in
words at the present day; but, for whatever reason, this portion of the
ancient liberties has long been abandoned, and the boundary remains,
as drawn by the Parliamentary Commissioners in 1832, along the
enclosure, on the evidence of the latest perambulations.

At the north-eastern limits the ancient inquisitions and the court
leet books describe the boundary line as passing the Burle or Borell
Stone along Burgess Street to Langherne Gate, and thence to the Haven
Stone. For some reason or other, the modern perambulations appear to
have confined themselves to the shorter route by the Burle Stone, and
along the stream there to the river Itchen ; and in accordance with this
the Commissioners of 1832 drew the boundary, in which they have
been followed by those of 1868.

But beyond the evidence from the inquisitions, there is also that of
the Corporation having exercised jurisdiction in time past as far as the
Langherne Gate and Haven Stone line. Thus in 14881 repairs were
done upon the four crosses of the franchise, upon Acorn Bridge, Lang-
herne Gate, the Haven Stone, Hegstone, &c. In 1594 one Thomas Betts
was fined #5 for removing the Haven Stone, which is described as a
boundary. This was discovered ‘in our last circuit riding,’ so that at
that period they took the longer route. The stone was to be replaced
under a penalty of £20. In 1600 the court leet ‘ present the postes
and vanes at Langhthorne gate, and lickwise at Havenstone by Hilton
are sett to be amended and new cullored. Also the passage betwene
the two postes nere Havenstone is so moyry as is not passable: where-
fore we amerce Sir Michell Blunt, knyght, that holdeth Stonage furme
in xij’, Be it comanded to him to cause the same mire and durt to be
amended thesside the lawdaye next uppon paine of x*” In the next
year, however, matters are not amended as far as the vanes and posts

 

1 MS, temp. T. Overey, sub anno,
THE LIBERTIES OR PRECINCTS, © 47

 

are concerned, for they ‘are altogether decayed and the vanes taken
down, whereof we crave redresse and reformation by order of the
steward” There also occurs another presentment of Sir Michael
Blunt which seems to affect the district in question. After this no
important notice of the north-eastern boundary has been met with till
the present century. In the year 1819 the Alderman of Portswood
reported! ‘that the boundary stone called Haven stone, situate at
Portswood, dividing the County of this Town from the County of
Hants, had been taken away and converted by some persons’ to the
use of South Stoneham Mill. Strict inquiry was made, and as it
proved that the stone had been removed by a servant without the
knowledge of his employers, and that another had been placed in its
stead, the matter was allowed to drop after ample apology. In the
same year a new boundary stone, bearing the arms and monogram of
the town, was placed at Langherne Gate, where it is now standing.

It seems probable that the ancient boundary line passed from Lang-
herne Gate through South Stoneham farm, having struck and followed
a little watercourse, which would thus be the ‘ water of Furzewell,’ a
name now unknown in the district. It would then cross the Portswood
road some 250 yards north-east of the present boundary.

“In consequence of this boundary, including Portswood, the Prior
‘and Convent of St. Dionis, as lords of Portswood, agreed by an in-
*‘ denture, bearing date 20 Richard II. (1396), that the inhabitants of
** Portswood should submit to the jurisdiction of the town, and should
“ attend the Town Court Leet, and should be rated with the town for
“ the king’s supplies; their proportion to be for every fifteenth #1, 6s. 8d
The Corporation pay a rent of #4 a year to the owners of the manor
“ of South Stoneham, and it appears in the Journal that in the year
“1638 Mrs. Clarke, the owner at that time, produced to the Cor-
‘* poration some deeds by which such a rent is granted payable out of
certain lands, tenements, and hereditaments in the town of South-
ampton and the liberties thereof, by the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses
“of Southampton. The Journal does not say on what account this
rent was granted, but it is supposed to be for riding through part of
“ the lands of that estate in the perambulation of their liberties. The
date of those deeds is g and 15 James I.

“The ancient custom was to hold a Court Leet at the Cutted- The Lay.
thorn, where a place was enclosed for that purpose, and all the 9
inhabitants were summoned to ride the bounds and attend the
court every year on the 3d Tuesday after Easter on the penalty

n
a

¢

a

a

6

n
a

 

1 Journal sub anno.
? Lib, Remembranciarum H,, f. 115.
sent

iclusion.

2 Com.

48 THE COMMON AND COMMON LANDS.

 

“of 1d. for every defaulter: a dinner! was provided there at the
““ expense of the Corporation. They came afterwards to hold their
“court in town in the morning, and rode the bounds in the afternoon,
“and at their return the shea gave a supper to the whole company ;
“but within a very few years this has been left off, and they hold
“their court in town, and the Mayor and Sheriff, very poorly
“ attended, ride the bounds in a kind of private manner.”

The county of the town of Southampton, as shown above, is
almost certainly somewhat shrunk from its ancient dimensions, but
it has at all events gained accuracy of definition: it is, in fact,
identical with the borough, comprising an area of 1980 acres, and
consisting of the parishes of All Saints, Holy Rood, St. Lawrence, St.
John, St. Michael, so much of the parish of St. Mary as lies west of
the Itchen, the tithing of Portswood in the parish of South Stoneham,
and Southampton common, which is extra-parochial.

The district is separated from the rest of Hampshire for certain
county purposes, though these of late years have again become
diminished ; but as it is all under the jurisdiction of the Corporation,
the municipal institutions of the borough are, in fact, those by which
the county is governed.

An account of the common lands will follow naturally on the
foregoing.

Section IT.
The Common and Common Lands.

“ What is now called Southampton Common was formerly part of
“the manor of Shirley or Surlie, and 12 Henry III. or a.p. 1228

 

1 “ Expenses of the Law-day at Cutthorn, 14 Henry VII. (1499), Steward’s
books :”—

 

s. a s. a.
A crope of beffe 2 4)| Two gallons claret wyne . I 4
Four leggs of mutton I o| Orengys o 2
Do. do. 1 o| Musterd and v vineger o 2
Three dos, of bred . ‘ 3 0} Two hundred of wood I 4
Half a barrell doble beer. 1 8j|A man to dresse the mette o 8
Half a barrell fyne hyl beer I. ©] Two poor men to turn o 3
Ten gallons peny ale o 10] Two poor boys o 2
Twelve chekens 1 o|]Acarte to Cut-thorn o 8
Four pyggs 2 o| For whyt dysches o 8
Two lambys . 2 oO. Making a both ; 2 0-3
Butter and eggs o 8!Hyre of two garnysche off
Chese o 3 Wessell o 8
Salt ‘ o |The 12 men when they gafe
Half a bushel of dinwen o 8 ther verdyt. ei 2 0
Half a pond of peper o 8| Two men beyring the two long
Saffryn, cloves, and mace o 4 plankes, and setting the two
Preuyns and raysyns 7 o 8 barrys ‘ . - 0 4G
THE COMMON AND COMMON LANDS. 49

 

“a Fine of it was passed between the town of Southampton and
“ Nicholas de Surlie, lord of that manor, in which the bounds of it
“are described :

‘This is the final concord! made between the burgesses of Southampton, on
‘‘ the one part, and Nicholas de Surlie, on the other part, in the houses of the
** castle of our lord the king at Southampton on the vigil of Pentecost, in the
“rath year of the reign of King Henry son of John, before Sir Thomas de
‘* Muleton, Robert de Lexinton, Ralph Musard,? at that time justices in eyre, the
‘* residents in the aforesaid houses of our lord the king, and many other of the
‘“ king’s faithful men then present: Concerning the common pasture of the town
“ of Southampton lying on the north part of the lands of William Wolgar, John
‘* Blancbully,3 Amise Fortin, and of land which belonged to John Chopin, about
‘‘ which contention had arisen between the parties: Namely that the aforesaid
‘* Nicholas acknowledges the right of the Burgesses to the same pasture and quit-
‘* claims for himself and his heirs for ever whatever right he had, or might have
‘had, in the aforesaid pasture, ‘as the land stretches in length from the corner
“and ditch # of the aforesaid William Wolgar’s land as far as Kotterorne® as
** * the king’s kingway coming from Achard’s bridge leads from the corner and
*** ditch of William Wolgar to the said thorn-bush of Kotterorne which is upon
‘¢ the highway; and also all the pasture in breadth within the highway that
“leads from the aforesaid thorn-bush of Kotterorne as far as the cross of
* * Burlston which is on the great road between Hanton and Winton; and all
““ “the pasture as it stretches in length from the said cross of Burlston to the
“* corner and ditch of the land which was John Chopin’s as the great high-road
“*Jeadeth that comes from Winton to Hanton; and all the pasture as it
“* ¢ stretches in breadth from the corner and ditch (or fence) of the land which
“** was John Chopin’s to the corner and ditch (or fence) of the aforesaid
“¢ * William Wolgar. So that the whole pasture included between the said three
‘* * highways, clear of the fences of the forenamed William Wolgar, John Blanc-
“** bully, and Amise Fortin, and of the land which was John Chopin’s, which
“* «was planted [7.¢., the pasture] with trees when this Fine [finalis concordia]
‘* © was passed, shall remain to the said Burgesses, &c. And for this acknow-
“* « ledgement of their right, and the quitting claim to the said pasture, the said
‘* © Burgesses paid to the said Nicholas ten marks of silver.’

“ At the same time it was agreed that the cattle of neither party
** should come upon the other’s common, but that each should have a
“ free passage to and from their own common.

“ap. 1549. It was declared that Northam has no right of Rights.
“ common.

“a.D. 1570, An order was made that no Portswood people should

 

1 Liber Niger, f. 107.

2 He had fined in £100 for leave to marry as he liked, 3 Ric, I. (1192).
Most of the fine was relaxed. Madox, Exchegq,, ii. 224.

8 John Blancbully had the King’s great ship called the ‘Queen’ during his
life at a rent of fifty marks a year, from the year 1232 (see Madox, Excheq.,
i. 509).

4 Fossatum, more widely fence.

5 So in the original. Dr, Speed, who has given this part of the document,
has Kottethorne, Cutthorn being meant,

D
dws.

horn,

etery,

50 THE COMMON AND COMMON LANDS.

 

“ put any cattle upon the common til] Mr. Knight and Lady Dawtrey
“ show their right.

“ About the same time several people of Portswood?+ and Hill paid
“ fines for trespasses of their cattle upon the common.”

Rights of common belonged only to the inhabitant householders of
the town. In 1580 a certain Peter Quate was fined for assuming these
rights, ‘and being a battchyller, and not keping howsse, ought not to
kepe any cattal at all’2 The town books, especially in the sixteenth
century, abound in regulations on turning out of cattle, and ‘ oppressors
of the common ’—that is, persons who turned out too many head, or
otherwise unlawfully—were sharply dealt with.

Southampton common, which is exempted from building by Act of
Parliament, remains substantially the same in extent as in the sixteenth
century, but within its ample circuit many improvements have been
made by roadmaking and planting. It comprises about 376 acres of
lovely and varied forest scenery. Before leaving it we must mention
three spots with very different associations.

The site of the gallows is covered by the reservoirs on the upper
part of the common to the left of the Winchester Road. The last
execution here was on July 27, 1785, in the shrievalty of Thomas Mears,
Esq., the criminal being the late butler of Mrs. Bagenal, of 16 Above
Bar, condemned for having burglariously entered her dwelling and
stolen plate. He had been committed by the mayor (John Monckton,
Esq.) and Thomas Guillaume, Esq., justices of the peace for the town
and county, on February 28, and tried and convicted at the summer
assizes held in the Guildhall, July 9, 1785.

Cutthorn was an enclosure near the north boundary of the common,
and to the right of the Winchester Road, deriving its name from some
famous ‘cutted-thorn ;’ in ancient times it being common for manorial
courts to be held in the open air round some remarkable tree—an oak,
an apple, a thorn, as it might chance—a practice which recalls some
most primitive associations, We speak of Cutthorn also elsewhere.

Under the powers of 6 & 7 Vict. 1843 (July 4), the rights of
common and all other rights were severed from fifteen acres of the
common, and that portion vested in the mayor, aldermen, and
burgesses for the purposes of a cemetery, to be divided according to
the needs of the place into consecrated and unconsecrated ground.

 

1 “ There are several affidavits which prove the town’s right to the common
* exclusive of S. Denys (z.¢., Portswood) : and also the copy of a lease by which
“the town granted a part of the common to the lord of S. Denys for 60 years on
“condition that he should fence it (Papers concerning Lady Dawtrey in Audit
“* House).”

2 Court Leet Book, 1580.
OTHER COMMON LANDS. 51

 

The service for the dead in the consecrated ground was to be performed
by the incumbent of the borough parish from which the deceased
should be removed for interment; and in the case of persons not dying
in any such parish, the duty of officiating devolved on the incumbents
of the borough parishes in monthly rotation, The Act gave the Cor-
poration power to borrow £7000 upon the fees, and provided for the
addition of five acres when required. The ground selected, at the
south-west corner of the common, was left as far as possible in its
natural beauty : it was fenced, drained, further planted, and intersected
with roads and paths as its purpose demanded. Three chapels were
erected—one for the Church of England, in the Norman style, another
for the Nonconformists, and a third for the Jews, both of Early English
character ; the curators’ lodge and entrance gate being Perpendicular.
The total cost of the cemetery, with preliminary expenses, was about
£10,000. It was opened in 1846, when the church portion was con-
secrated by the Bishop of Winchester (Sumner). The additional five
acres were enclosed and the part allotted to the church consecrated
in 1863. ,

The cemetery is kept in beautiful order under the supervision of the
Corporation.

The avenue, which connects the common with the town, com-
Mmences at the fountain erected near the site of Lubery, afterwards
Padwell Cross, so named from former owners of adjacent property, and
subsequently, for a like reason, called John-a-Guernsey’s Cross. The
avenue was originally commenced at this spot in February 1744-45, and
continued in 1750 and subsequent years. It is said that some of the
trees were planted in commemoration of the battle of Culloden, which
was fought on April 16, 1746. It has of late years been considerably
extended.

The common and the avenue are extra-parochial, in consequence,
possibly, of their having at a remote period belonged to the ancient
forest of Bere. The land south of the common on each side of the
avenue has, however, for centuries been included in the adjacent
parishes.

Section III.

Other Common Lands: Saltmarsh—Old Controversies—Modern
Lransformations.

Formerly there were other common lands of some extent. “ In
“1549 several persons made oath that they knew Mr. Baker’s close,
“« Mr. Rigg’s close, Mr. James’s close, the two chantry closes, Hound-
“ well, Kingsland, Hogland, Maudelin two fields, Lobery mead, the
“ closes in S. Mary’s lane, and where the Prior of S, Denys made his

The Aver
marsh,

il of

its with
I's

use,

52 THE SALTMARSH.

 

“ garden, common to the use of the cattle and beasts of the commons
“ of the town after the crop was taken away, and also the town ditches
“common throughout the year.*

“ The town ditches are Jeased out by the Corporation as part of the
“ waste; but how the town came to lose their right of common in
“ most of the other lands above mentioned I cannot learn. They have
“it still in the same form in Houndwell, Hogland, and the two
“* Maudelin fields, but in none of the rest.

“There is another article of common belonging to the town,
“ namely, the field called God’s house meadow, which is common from
“ Lammas to the Purification—to God’s house the rest of the year;
“ and the Saltmarsh, which is common all the year.”

This Saltmarsh stretched round by the shore from God’s House gate
to Cross House and Chapel, and was surrounded by a bank thrown up
as a protection from the sea, the repair of which was a constant source
of feud, the Corporation maintaining that the commoners were bound te
repair it in consequence of their exercise of common, and asserting that
their own duties as to sea-banks were confined to such as were at the
feet of the walls, and so part of the fortifications.

In order to maintain the banks they sometimes attempted a rate,?
sometimes they let the crop of a portion of it, as to the porters in
1526; but efforts at enclosure, for whatever purpose, were constantly
resisted. Ultimately, in 1681, the Corporation got a commission of
sewers for this marsh; and the disputes continuing as of old, a renewal
of the commission was talked of in 1753, to avoid which some private
persons repaired the banks.

We turn to a more important controversy—one with God’s House,
brought to arbitration in 1503. It was the town’s contention at that
time that all the lands eastward of Orchard Lane and south of Crampe
or Marsh Lane, together with a little marsh stretching from Cross House
to the chapel of the Holy Trinity on the north, were properly common
and belonged to the town by royal grant, but that in the first part of
the fifteenth century the authorities of God’s House had made serious
encroachments and erected fences, which the mayor and community of
the town had broken up in assertion of their rights, apparently about
1438. After this the land was said to have remained open till the
mayoralty of John Walker in 1466 and the wardenship of John
Pereson—he became warden about 1459—when the latter disseised
the town of certain lands, a part of the great marsh or common,
having bought over the mayor by a grant of some of the land in

 

1 Liber Niger, f. 105. See also Court Leet Book for 1550.
2 See extract at the end of this Section,
THE SALTMARSII. 53

 

question, which he consented to hold from the Hospital. A few years
after this, apparently about 1471, in the mayoralty of Robert Bluett,
the mayor, burgesses, and commonalty again asserted their right by
forcibly removing the fences; and the controversy continuing, Chris-
topher Bainbrigge, who became warden of St. Julian’s in 1495, pre-
ferred a petition to the king and council against the Corporation,
upon which the matter was put to arbitration. The Hospital’s case
does not appear; but on the town’s part a number of ancient inhabi-
tants made oath on the 18th January 1503 (18 Hen. VII.) before John
Edmund, Prior of Montsent, and Sir Robert Peck, Knt., of Baddesley,
in support of the town’s claim: there were a veteran named Richard
Woodleff, ‘aged 104 and more,’ John Millbrook, aged 93, John Burges,
Abbot of Letley (now Netley), aged 76, Thomas Gage, aged 86, and
‘many others,’

The land in dispute was at this time partially divided into closes by
-hedge and ditch. Outside God’s House gate and north of the present
bowling-green, at that time unenclosed, the land south of East Street
and between the town ditches and Orchard Lane, now thickly built
over and crossed by Bell Street, Mount Street, Union Street, College
Street, Bernard Street, Britton Street, containing also Brunswick
Square, Charlotte Street, and many other small streets and courts,
was then divided into three gardens or closes, of which that to the
north belonged apparently to John Fleming, the middle one to Thomas
Thomas, and that to the south, which joined what is now the bowling-
green, to Christopher Ambrose. The two closes belonging respectively
to Thomas and Ambrose were in dispute. Immediately to the east of
these three gardens was a large close or field bounded on the north by
Crampe or Marsh Lane, and on the east by the Saltmarsh. This was
the land now included by Marsh Lane on the north, by Orchard Lane
and Terminus Terrace on the west and east, and by Upper and Lower
Queen’s Terrace on the south, and containing Cross Street, Chandos
Street, Winchester Terrace, Bridge Street, Oxford Street, Latimer
Street, Threefield Lane, Queen Street, and several others. South of this
enclosure was a little field or close lying to the north of the road lead-
ing from God’s House gate towards Itchen Ferry, bounded on the west
by Newtown or Orchard Lane, and adjoining the garden of Christopher
Ambrose, and on the east running to the Saltmarsh: this land is now
known as Porter’s or God’s House Meadow. The Saltmarsh was the
whole stretch of land partly now built over by the railway terminus
and adjacent streets, limited on the west by the before-named en-
closures, on the south and east by the sea, and on the north by Crampe
or Marsh Lane as far as Cross House at the ferry, near which was a
portion of ground called the Little Marsh. Besides the above lands,
ward,

varsh,

54 THE SALTMARSH.

 

certain rents arising from houses (specified) in the town were in dis-
pute, amounting altogether to 47s. 2$d., to which the master, brethren,
and sisters of God’s House laid claim as theirs from ancient time.

In the award, which was made by Mr. Justice Kingsmill and Mr.
Richard Broke, gentleman, on the 28th October 1504 (20 Hen. VII),
the two gardens and the great field, as also the town rents, were
adjudged to God’s House for ever, together with the use of the smaller
field (Porter’s or God’s House Meadow) from the Purification to Lammas
each year, after which the meadow was to be common to the town: on
the other hand, the whole of the Saltmarsh was adjudged to the town,
to be common throughout the year. Releases between the parties were
passed accordingly on 6th February 1505 (20 Hen. VII.) In that from
Christopher Bainbrigge, warden of St. Julian’s, to the Corporation, the
great marsh is described as abutting on the highway which leads from
God’s House gate to Itchen Ferry towards the south and east, upon
two closes or fields belonging to the warden of God’s House towards
the west, and upon a little lane (venellam) called Crampe Lane, and a
certain small marsh lately belonging to the said warden but now to
the Corporation, towards the north. The little marsh by Itchen Cross
abutted on the great marsh towards the south, upon the Itchen Water
towards the east, upon Crampe Lane and land belonging to the
precentor of St. Mary’s on the west, and a property belonging to the
chapel of the Holy Trinity on the north.

The bowling-green should here be mentioned. The first probable
reference to this paddock as a place of recreation which has been
observed occurs under 1550, in which year a townsman, the lessee of
the King’s Orchard, was presented for keeping ‘common playinge
with bowles, tabylles and other unlawfull games agaynst the kinges
statute.’

The King’s Orchard, called in Elizabeth’s time the ‘Queen’s,’ was
close to this spot.

The Act which prohibited ‘inferior people’ from playing at bowls
and other games had been passed in 1541, and such persons were
constantly being fined for infringing the statute. The bowling-green
was, in short, as described in 1635, and has continued to be, a ground
‘where many gentlemen, with the gentile merchants of this town, take
their recreation.’

Before passing to modern transformations of the Saltmarsh, we may
notice one or two past regulations. Refuse from the streets was
frequently ordered to be strewn over Saltmarsh, whether as manure or
for raising the level of hollow places. Brewers in 1567 were ordered

 

1 See Corporation documents relating to Saltmarsh and God’s House.
THE SALTMARSH. 55

 

to dig no more clay in Saltmarsh for their bungs until they had
carefully filled up all existing holes; wherever they dug they were to
fill up. In 1576} and other years, offenders in this respect were
heavily amerced, sometimes apparently for digging at all. Under the
former year is an order about pasturage, which we give as a specimen
of such regulations :—Saltmarsh was to be shut from Ladyday to May-
day, then open till Houndwell should be rid of hay, after which Salt-
marsh was to be closed and Houndwell and the Heath (the common)
open till East and West Magdalen cornfields should be harvested.
Then the cattle were to go into the Magdalens and Houndwell was
to be closed; and the Magdalens being eaten bare, Saltmarsh was to
be opened again till Houndwell and East and West Magdalens should
be sufficiently grown.?

The modern development of the town depended very much on Rights
the way in which these common Jands would be dealt with, occu- eee
pying as they did a valuable and extensive zone round the ancient
town. A railway had been under consideration as early as 1825,
but the scheme for a railway and docks was not fairly afloat till
1830. In November that year the Corporation received a deputation
from subscribers to the railway, and expressed their readiness to make
arrangements with any respectable company that might be formed
for the advancement of the port. Various other questions which had
been mooted, such as the employment of the poor on the common
lands, and the nature of the rights over such lands of those whose
consent (under 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 42) had first to be obtained,
directed the further attention of the Corporation towards the common
fields.2 Meanwhile in February 1832 leave had been granted to
the railway company to pass over the town mud-lands and marsh
according to a plan exhibited; and in November 1833, preliminarics
being completed for introducing the railway bill into Parliament, the
Corporation again expressed their hearty concurrence and desire to
co-operate in the scheme. The bill was passed in the following year.

But the Marsh Improvement Act, 7 & 8 Vict. 1844 (July 4), Marsh
completed the history of the common lands for the present. The a eh
various portions to be dealt with were the marsh, formerly the Salt-
marsh, common all the year to the scot-and-lot paying inhabitants,
and containing upwards of 16 acres, and the fields called East Mag-
dalens or Marlands, containing about 22 acres, West Marland
containing 16 acres, and Hoglands 11 acres, all which were common

 

1 Temp. Thome Overey, sub anno; Court Leet Books, ib,

2 Court Leet Books, 1567.

3 Journal, Feb. 18, 1831, March 28, 1831, Nov. 9, 1832, Oct. 32, 1834,
Feb, 20, 1835, &c.
Parks.

56 THE SALTMARSH.

 

six months in the year. The marsh, though intersected by the
railway and the Itchen Bridge Road, was imperfectly drained and
liable to be flooded by the tide, and thus a constant source of nuisance
to houses in the vicinity. This tract of ground, detached and forming
no part of the common fields, was peculiarly eligible for building
purposes, owing to its proximity to the railway terminus. Accord-
ingly the Act gave power to the Corporation to let this portion on
building leases, all rights of common being extinguished, and directed
that the money arising from the improved estate should be employed
in buying up a certain leasehold interest in East Marlands, behind
Sussex Place and Northam Bridge Road, for #740, and in the pur-
chase, at #250 per acre, of the fee-simple of all the common fields
which were to be vested in the Corporation, and reserved henceforth
for the benefit of the public. In the marsh a reservation was made of
four acres, bounded by Marsh Lane on the north, Itchen Bridge Road
on the south, the railway on the east, and the road from the terminus
to Marsh Lane on the west, for a recreation ground. This portion is
now utilised as a cattle-market, and occasionally asa fair-ground, under
the authority given to the Corporation by the Act for the removal
of Above Bar Fair. The Corporation received powers to drain and
fill up the remnant of the abortive canal in Houndwell, to erect
lodges for keepers, and otherwise to improve and manage the public
lands for common use. The issue of the Act has been the formation
of the public parks, which are not only a yearly increasing ornament
to the town, but of essential service to a growing population rapidly
surrounding them on all sides. It seems strange to have to record
that the bill had been petitioned against by the vestries on account of
the powers taken by the Corporation to enclose the marsh,

Novre.—The Agreement for the Inhabitants to repair the Banks at the
Saltmarsh,

‘Be it knowen to all the Inhabytants and Comyns of this Towne of Suth-
ampton, that the Meyre, Bailiffs, and Burgesses of the same be content and
agreyd that the sayde Inhabytants and Burgesses shall have the Saltemershe
Comyn in manner and form following, and upon such conditions as hereafter
ensue.

‘ Fyrst, if the Inhabytants of the Towne of Suthampton wylbe content to bere
ther parte of the Charge of 19'. 11°. 0, and odd money w™ hath be spent upon
the Saltmershe this last yer past, for making‘of the Groynys and other Charges
for the defence of the Se agenst the same Mershe, and over and above that, to
bere ther parte of the Charge that shall be yerely requyred, nedefull for the
contynual kepyng and defendyng of the See oute of the sayde Mershe, that then
they to have lyke Liberty and profyte of the sayde Mershe, as the s‘4 Meyr,
Bailiffs and Burgesses shall have after the Rate.

“Or ells, Wher as the sayd Meyr, Bailiffs, and Burgesses have bene at grete
and importunate Charges for the same Mershe (fyrst in the Lawe by Arbitre-
THE SALTMARSH. 57

 

ment, and otherwise, and allso) in the makyng of a Gutt or Sluce, and other
charges, w the sayd Meyer, Bailiffs, and Burgesses have ryght wel and
lovyngly consyder’d had be to grevous for the sayd Inhabytants to have borne,
that notwithstanding, if the sayd Inhabytants wylbe content for ther part that
six or eight of themselves, suche as the sayd Meyer, Bailiffs, and Burgesses shall
name, wyl be bound by obligation to the sayd Meyer, Bailiffs, and Burg’ and
to ther Successors, that they and ther Successors from hensforth shall defend
the See oute of the sayde Mershe, and every part thereof, and also when any of
the sayd six or eight fortune to dissease, or that there be no mo left of them
alyve but four, or three at the lest, then as many other of the sayd Inhabitants
to be nue bound, in manner and form as is above sayde, and by the Nomination
of the sayd Meyr, Bailiffs, and Burgesses and ther Successors, that then the sayd
Meyr, Bailiffs, and Burgesses be content that then it lye opyn and be comyn for
every man, as wel to the Inhabitants as Burgeysys.

‘Or ells, To close it in, and lete it to ferme by the yer, till oon croppe be
takyn thereof yerely, whyche croppe shall be spent upon the same, as shall be
thought most nedefull, and after the sayd croppe be so taken, the sayd Mershe
to be opyn and comyn, as wel to the sayd Inhabitants as to the Burgeysys.

‘And notwithstanding the Premisses, if the sayd Inhabitants wyl be content
at ther Cost and Charge to sufficiently nue make up the Banke from Itchyn
Crosse to the Groynys, so that it may surely defend the See out of the sayd
Mershe, and the same Banke so by the sayd Inhabitants at this oon tyme
sufficyently made, yerely hereafter, when the sayd Banke shall nede Reparation,
to bere ther parte of the same Reparation with the sayd Meyr, Bailiffs, and
Burgeysys after the Rate; that then the sayd Mershe lye opyn and be comyn, as
wel to the sayd Inhabitants, as to the sayd Meyr, Bailiffs, and Burgeysys.

‘And the sayd Meyr, Bailiffs,and Burgeysys be content to discharge the sayd
Inhabytants of paying of any penny of the said 19). 10%. 0, and odd money, and
of all other charges w the sayd Meyr, Bailiffs, and Burgeysys have bene at
upon the nue making of the sayd Gutt, Sluce, and Bankes, so that hereafter all
such Reparations as hereafter shall be nedefull, as wel upon the sayd Gutt and
Sluce, as upon the sayd Banke, by the sayd Inhabitants so nue made, shall be
borne at every tyme nedefull, as wel by the sayd Meyr, Bailiffs, and Burgeysys,
as by sayd Inhabitants Rately.’

To this the inhabitants replied as under :—

‘As to the Salte Mershe your pore Comyns sayn, oute of tyme of mynd hit
hath ben an opyn Comyn, and occupyed for a Comyn wele, ease, and profett,
for the Burges and Comyns of this Town, saff unto now late there was a Sute
and Contraversy between the hooll body of this Town and theym of Gods-hous,
for the defens of w Sutes and other labours, your pore Comyns for the
Recovery of the same bare ther parte of the Charges and Cost everych of them
Rately, after ther Degre, and more wold have don rather than to have lost it.
And in lyke wyse your seyd pore Comyns will be ever ready to do for such a
Comyn Wele if any other person or persons hereafter wold attempt any such
Sutes, to theyr pore power and Degre, and over that will ever be ready to with-
stand all manner of persons with theyre bodyes and Goods that wold attempt to
usurp upon any poynt or parcell of the Libertyes and Fraunchyses of this Town,
besechyng and praying your honourable Masterships all, that the sayd Salte
Mershe maybe as of auncyent tyme it hath ben, that is to say opyn Comyn still
for all Burgessys and Comyns of this Town, without that it in any wyse shall
be lette to ferme for any Rent yerely in no manner wyse, ne the fyrst Cropp
taken of it in no yere to come, but it to stand full Comyn, as of old tyme it hath
ben. Theise Premisses to be by your discretion considered, we humbly
beseeche you to be good Masters to your pore Comyns,
58 THE SALTMARSH.

 

‘And your sayd pore Comyns sayn, as to pay any money farther for the
makyng of the Slusse, Brigge, or Cutte makyng there, they prayn your Wissedoms
in that matter to asses non of theym, for they intend to pay non, in no wyse.
But this they seyn that if ever in tyme to com it shall happen any more farther
defens or Reparation to be don all aboute the seyd Mershe, wheder it be grete
Works or small, what fortune that ‘hereafter shall fall, your seyd pore Comyns
sey they will ever be redy to bere theyr Rately parte to theyr power and pore
degrees, as our Masters the Burgessys of the Town shall do for the amendyng of
the same Mershe, or the defens of it, and that so it may please your Master-
shipps remembryng your pore Comyns are not as yet ata fordele in richesse,
trustyng to God to encrese under your Mastershipps so ye be content with this
theyr answer at this tyme. And so they shall pray to God for you.

‘And Worshypfull Masters, if there be any poynte in this aunswere that doth
or shold sounde to any greff or displeasure to you, or w™ nedeth amendement, so
that it may conduce to a good and general Comyn Wele, lete be knowe your
discrete mynds in Articles by wrytyng, and so we trust to accomplish your
mynds for the universal Wele of you, Master Meyr, your Comburgessys, and
all the Comyns who are your own pore Comyns.’

As a curious picture of the times, the sequel to the foregoing agreement is
given, The ‘pore Comyns’ could not bind their successors; and the banks
needing repair, an order of the House was made, March 1517, for putting up
half the marsh nearest the town, on which the butts stood, from the Purification
to St. Peter’s Day, with a view of meeting the expenses from the proceeds of the
crop. On the Tuesday after this order, when the mayor (John Perchard) and
his brethren were holding the king’s law-day in the Town Hall, some three
hundred of the commons, men and women, swarmed into the Saltmarsh, broke
down fences and banks, then rushing in a mass to the Guildhall, made ‘pre-
sumptuously and unlawfully a great shout,’ to the annoyance of the court within.
They then walked two and two with picks and shovels as far as Holy Rood
Church and Cross, close to which was the mayor’s house, where one of them
had the audacity to cry, ‘If Master Mayor have any more work for us, we be
ready.’ Then they went home. Such conduct could not be borne. On the
Saturday following, Sir William Sandes, one of the King’s Council, appeared on
the scene with letters directed to the mayor for the immediate apprehension of
the chief offenders, That night the ringleaders fled, but six offer persons were
seized, hurried up to London, and lodged in the Marshalsea. What became of
the chief offenders does not appear, but eternal banishment was proclaimed
against them unless they returned and submitted, Petitions were quickly got up
in every parish for the unfortunate six: the banks, it was said, should be re-
paired, and no such outrage ever repeated, would the mayor and his brethren
use their good offices towards these unhappy men? The authorities began to
relent, and proclamation was made that all, whether men or women, who had
taken part in breaking down, should now at once put up the banks. This
done, the mayor and his brethren assured the commons of their’ good offices.
A letter was written to my Lord Cardinal, Chancellor of England, showing his
grace that the commons were very sorry ‘for their sad unlawful deeds ;’ that they
had repaired damages, and submitted themselves to such further correction as
the mayor might think good. A letter was also written to my Lord of Win-
chester, begging him to write to the Lord Cardinal, In consequence of all this,
the captives were delivered out of the Marshalsea on July 16, and were adjudged
by the Lord Cardinal and the Council at their coming to Hampton to sit in the
open stocks under the pillory ; the mayor, the king’s lieutenant, and his brethren
were to take care to walk down the street that way, and the penitents were to
THE FORTIFICATIONS, 59

 

say these words, ‘ Master Mayor, we have offended the king’s grace and all you
in making a great riot and unlawful assembly, contrary to the king’s laws and the
good rules of the town, whereof we acknowledge ourselves guilty, and beseech you
and your brethren to be good masters unto us hereafter and to forgive us.’ The
whole program was faithfully carried out. The mayor, in the name of his
brethren, accepted the apology, and assured the woe-begone figures under the
pillory that no grudge should be borne against them. ‘And therupponne [he]
commaunded them owt of the stokkes, and hadd them to the Audite hous, and
bound them by obligacon to be good aberyng ageynst the Kinges grace and
the Mayor and his Brethryn hereafter, and so delyveryd them.’

Secrion IV.— Zhe Fortifications.

The fortifications belong in part to the Norman period. Of this
range of date are the core of the Bargate, with a portion of the present
walls, some existing works below the castle, and domestic buildings in
the line of the western wall, and forming part of its original circuit.

It will be convenient to refer to some of the probable dates of con- Periods of
struction. The castle was in existence in 1153, as in that year it iston
mentioned in the terms of agreement between King Stephen and
Prince Henry.”

In the 4th John (1202-3) costs to the amount of £25, 6s., under
the supervision of Walter Foran and Robert Hardwin, were allowed for
carrying timber to the castle to make there ‘the king’s houses,’ for
sinking a well in the castle, and for other repairs; and in that and in
the following year the king allowed £100 each year out of the fee-
farm towards the walling of the town.®

During the latter part of the reign of Henry III. two murages
were granted, that is, liberty to collect tolls for a certain number of
years, for the building or repair of the walls. The former of these, for
ten years, was granted from November 30, 1260; the second, for five
years, on November 12, 1270. A considerable number of tolls are
scheduled on these grants.‘

In 1321 (May 26) a murage was granted for three years from
date,® after which a renewal was petitioned for.® By this time the flank-
ing towers, to be mentioned presently, had been added to the Bargate.
The quayages and barbican duty, granted from 1323 to 1346 (see Quays),
should also be mentioned as having an immediate connection with the
fortifications. To this period we venture to assign the arcade-work

 

1 Boke of Remembrances, ff. 11-14.

2 See below, last chapter ; also above, pp. 29, 30.

8 Pipe Rolls, 4and 5 John. ‘ King’s houses ’ were also being made or repaired
at Portsmouth.

4 Pat. 45 H. Il]. m. 22; 55 H. III. m, 28,

6 Pat. 14 Ed. Il. p. 2, m. 8, ® Rot. Parl. ii, 439.
asion,

60 THE FORTIFICATIONS.

 

described below. The next efforts of construction were called forth by
the invasion of the town in 1338, for which see below in the last
chapter. It appears that, in spite of murages, the town was not
entirely walled. The enemy are supposed to have landed at ‘the
gravel,’ or in that immediate neighbourhood, and this weak quarter
was now ordered to be strengthened. By the advice of his council, the
king issued a mandate for the building of a stone wall as quickly as
possible towards the sea,! Stephen de Bitterle being commissioned
(March 30, 1339) to find all necessary timber, and governors were
appointed with special view to the fortification of the town and the
reassurance of the inhabitants. A writ in aid of the enclosure was
issued in 1340.2 In 1345 (May 20) a murage, at considerable length,
was granted for six years;° and ten years Jater the burgesses received
a further grant for ten years, in the usual form of a penny in the pound,
a halfpenny in tos., and a farthing in 5s., on all goods brought into or
carried out of the town, whether by land or water, by their own bur-
gesses or not, in aid of the walls. This was dated 28th June (29 Ed.
IIT.) 1355.4

Further repairs were ordered in April 1369, and contributions were
exacted from all persons according to their means, workmen being em-
ployed at the wages of the community. Accordingly, in 1376 (50
Ed. III.) we find the poor commons and tenants praying the king to
take the town into his hands and forgive them the farm for the
last two years, which, together with £1000 besides, they have expended
on the fortifications. They say that the town is but half inhabited
owing to the above burdens, and that those who are left are preparing
to go. They also ask for soldiers to defend the town and neighbour-
hood, being themselves unable to hold the place against the force which
they hear is being prepared by the enemy.® They received no relief at
the time, but there had evidently been a considerable outlay on the walls.

In the first year of Richard II., under the immediate apprehension

 

1 Rot, Orig. 13 Ed. IIL, rot. 50. Compare also Sir H. Englefield’s remarks
on this wall as it stood in his time.

2 Rot, Orig. 14 Ed. III. (Feb. 18).

3 Pat. 19 Ed. III. p. 1, m, 12,

4 The Corporation possess the exemplification of this grant, dated roth Feb-
tuary (39 Ed. III.) 1365, made at the request of the burgesses. See also Liber
Niger, p. 109, The above grant of 1355, given at length by Dr. Speed, was
erroneously supposed by him to have marked the commencement of the fortifi-
cations, In his version a misreading occurs which helped the above mistake.
It has not been thought necessary to reproduce his chapter on the fortifications
as a whole ; any information from it will be specified, and where it appears it will
be notified, as usual, by quotation marks.’

§ Pat. 43 Ed, III. p. 1, m. 23. § Rot. Parl. ii, 346 b.
THE FORTIFICATIONS. 61

 

of invasion, the mayor and bailiffs were ordered to look to the walls
and compel necessary contributions (December 8, 1377); and a few
months later (April 9, 1378) provision was made for the reconstruc-
tion of the castle keep Sir John Arundel had been appointed gover-
nor in the preceding July.

In 1400 (1 H. IV.) a grant of £200 per annum—X100 out of the
duty of wool in the port of the town and £100 out of the fee-farm for
the first year, but after that entirely from the latter source—was made
in aid of the fortifications, provided the inhabitants raised among them-
selves £100 each year for the like purpose. This £300 per annum
was to be spent under the supervision of Richard Mawardyn, king’s
esquire, of the mayor, and the controller of the port.? By this time the
beautiful octagonal projection had been added to the front of the
Bargate.

Henry V., in the second year of his reign (1414), released 140
marks (#93, 6s. 8d.) from the fee-farm for ten years, with license to
purchase lands in mortmain to the value of £100 in aid of the fortifi-
cations? At this period possibly, or not long after, the spur-work and
tower outside God’s House gate were added. Under the act of resump-
tion of 1482 (22 Ed. IV.) grants for repairs of the walls were especially
saved to the town; but at this very time we have a note of their
miscarriage. Thus the steward’s book of 1483 (rather 1484) contains
an account of the town’s suit ‘ayeynste Roger Kelsale,® Elizabeth
Sorell, and Thomas Nutson, as to the xl" the which was graunted to
the reparacon of the walles by Kynge Edwarde for vij yeres: and they
and Richard Wystard have take alowance of the same as for ilij yeris,
and have not paid hit to the towne.’

In 1486 (November 9g) license was given to export thirty sacks of
wool free of custom, in aid of the maintenance of the walls, stathes,
and quays of the port.°

“8 Henry VII. [1492-93].—The king granted £50 out of the fee-
“farm toward the making of the new wall on the west side of the
“town. Several private persons’ contributed at this time, among
“ other the Lord Arundel, whose name was given to one of the towers
“called ‘ Arundel tower’ to this day. There was another tower called
«St, Denis Tower,’ from whence it is probable that the canons of
“that priory had contributed to the fortifications of the town.”

 

Pat. 1 R. II. p. 2, m. 7, and p. 6, m. 7.

This document is printed in Madox, F. B., p. 290.

Rot. Parl iv. §3; Pat. 2 H. V. p. 3, m. 13.

Ibid, vi, 201 a. 5 See under Members of Parliament.
Materials for Hist. of H. vii. (Rolls Series), ii, 38.

See Steward’s books, 1493.

ID PRP wD

Keep,

Front of
Bargate.
-banks,

62 THE FORTIFICATIONS.

 

In 1511 (February 7) the Corporation obtained license to export a
hundred sacks of wool, free of custom, towards the repair of the town
walls inundated by the sea.!__ It will be convenient now to take up Dr.
Speed’s narrative, which gives a good account of the precautions used
against such damage.

“1 Mary [1553-54].—It is entered in the Journal that it was an
“ancient custom for the lightermen of the town to bring yearly their
“ lighter-loads of stones to lie between the piles or town walls, and they
“ were ordered to go forthwith to the isle of Wight, either to Sandye
“bay or the Nedelles, to load with chalk, ‘And they shall have for
“every lighter of 20 ton a barrell of beer, and under 20 ton a verkyn
“of beer,’ which agreement was made at the building of the south-
“side next Catch-cold; and they are henceforth, upon warning given
“by any officer of the town, to bring or cause to be brought, the
“lighter of chalk or stone for the defence of the town walls, and to
“ discharge it in such a place as seemeth good to the town.

“1634.—The boatmen of Heath [Hythe] were ordered to bring
“stones according to ancient custom.

“1683.—Heithe boatmen. Their ancient duty and service is to
“bring every half year one boat or lighter-loading of stones and to
“throw or put them against the town walls within the piles, or else to
“ pay 4d. every time they land any passenger or goods, to be levied by
“ the water-bailiff upon their cordage, sails, &c.2 The meaning of all
“this is that the sea-shore is piled all along at the bottom of the town
“walls, and the stones were to be laid between those piles to save the
“foundations of the walls from being washed away. There was for-
“merly a horse ferry to Hythe which was under the government of
“the magistrates of this town, and most probably the boatmen who
“plied the ferry were the persons of whom this duty and service were
“required. These piles thus filled up with stones are called Banks in
“the Journals: thus ‘ a.p. 1609.—The bank under Arundel tower is
“© ordered to be speedily amended.’ ”

Though the boatmen had to contribute the stones, the town
originally put in the piles and kept them up: thus, in 1469 the town
purchased ‘a grove of wood’ from the Abbot of Netley for 53s. 4d., in
order to make piles by the seaside.®

“In all their general charters, since the town was fortified, the
“charges and expense incurred by the town on the fortifications are
“mentioned as the reason for granting them such extensive privileges ;
“and the general charter of Edward VI. does for this reason release

 

1 Papers, &c., of H. viii. (Rolls Series), vol. i.
2 « Journal,” $ Steward’s books,
      

Aut Saints _

275. LAWRENCE'S

/2.6 Hovy Roov Cuut
28

22 Bow.inc Gree!
24 Aupit House
29.0LD Auoit He

21-Potymonp lowt
23. Friary

18_Gops House
19.Gopsuouse Tor
20_EastcaTEe

t

 

2UNDEL TOWER

‘ARGATE
ATCHCOLD _.._

2.9. Ob Fish Mark

aSTLE KEEP

30 S.Micuaes Ci

ASTLE WATERGATE
IDDLESCATE
_UE ANCHOR

SLLiInen HALL

 

32.S.Joun's Hos

 

Kinc JouNs Pactace J10_Bucte HALL
ON THE SOUTH-

ee

33_.West Hacc:

LLSQuare onCorner TOWER

TERN WITHARCADE|S. WESTGATE

~ WN
zz
oO
an 2
e
Se
= <
<
a <q
Or
Io 4
fet caf
A wi
foo
ca
=
2 oF
fio
Mo
n=
‘+
ee

 

TH&SouTH, AND |9.BucLe TowER

 

Lolace Page 63
THE WALLS. 6 3

 

‘* £150 a year of the fee-farm rent of the town on certain conditions
“(as mentioned elsewhere). For the same reason one of their privi-
“leges, viz., the forfeiture of all strangers’ goods sold in the town by re-
*‘ tail or to strangers, was confirmed by Act of Parliament, 4 James I;
“and in the year 1719 Mr. Serjeant Pengelly gave his opinion that
“the town’s right in this matter was good; but upon a trial the town
“was cast.” }

Having noted above the chief periods of construction, we may now
survey the fortifications, leaving to the end of this section the story of
their decay.

The Walls.

Medieval Southampton was defended by a lofty wall, some 25 to
30 feet in height, forming an irregular parallelogram, measuring on the
north side about 217 yards, on the east 786, on the south side from
east to west as far as the arch by the site of Bugle Tower within
Madame Mies’s garden, about 435 yards, and from that point to the
north-west angle of the town some 543 yards. The wall was strength-
ened at intervals all round by twenty-nine towers.®

There were seven principal gates, four of which remain. These The Gates.
are North or Bar gate, God’s House or South Castle gate, West gate,
and the postern, now called Blue Anchor gate. Those which have
disappeared were the East gate, Biddle’s gate on the west, and the
South or Water gate. In addition to these there was a Castle Water
gate now walled up, and a postern near the Friary and God’s House,
the site of which is lost. The insertion a little to the north of West
gate in front of Collis’s Court is of old date, though not original: that
called York gate in the north wall east‘of the Bargate is of the last
century.

The Bargate or north gate is a fine structure of various periods in Bargate.
two stages, the upper of which is occupied by the Guildhall, and the
lower pierced by a principal or central archway, with a postern of
modern construction on either side. Remains of the original Norman
gate-house, also in two storeys, are to be seen under the central passage
and above within the present Guildhall. Confining ourselves first to
the north side of the Bar, we observe two half-round towers set well North side.
back, one on either side; these started boldly from the original gate-
way, and were additions to it in the Early Decorated period? Subse-
quently to this addition and to the alterations on the south, that

 

1 “ Journal.”

2 Speed’s Theatre of Great Britain, first published in 1596, He died in 1629.

3 See a paper by G. T. Clarke, Esq., F.S.A., on the ‘Ancient Defences of
Southampton,’ in the Builder, December 28, 1872, and Archzol, Journal, vol, xxix,
Bargate
posterns.

64 THE WALLS.

 

beautiful projection was added on the north side, consisting of three
sides of an octagon, which gives the gateway its distinctive character.
This was probably in the reign of Richard II. On the front and
broader face of this projection a narrow buttress well advanced flanks
the central archway on either side, running up into a bold corbel table
supporting large and handsome battlements carried round the build-
ing; there being on this north side five embrasures on the broad front
of the octagon and two on each of the narrower faces, but the merlons
on these are fallen away and should be replaced. Between these
buttresses, on the north face, there are four machicolations in the
battlements over the central archway, two to the east of the eastern
buttress, and only one to the right of the western buttress, the width
on one side being greater than on the other; the reason for this differ-
ence not being apparent. On each of the narrower faces of the pro-
jection there are three machicolations.

The central archway has been pared and cut away to make the
opening as wide as possible. It may be divided longitudinally into
three or four periods, according as the gate was altered as above
described.

The posterns are perforations of the flanking towers: that on the
east was completed in February 1764; at each end were posts and
a turnstile; and in March 1774 the Commissioners of Pavement had
permission to construct a similar passage on the western side,’ though
prints of 1777 continue to show but one postern.

The posterns are open to the central roadway by two cross arches on
each side, the two next the north being in part original. These latter,
belonging to the Perpendicular work of the end of the fourteenth
century, terminated by oillets or loopholes having view and command
of the ditch on either side; but when the posterns were made these
terminations were carved away, and the openings subsequently
widened. .

Underneath the gate the inner mouth of these loopholes, on either
side, is observed to open from the wider of two arches composing an
arcade in the wall of the roadway in advance of the Norman work ;
and within the narrower of the arches which adjoins the Norman pier
part of the basement of the decorated tower flanking is seen to be
framed with the old loopholes still defending the inner or Norman
gate.

The cross or lateral arches to the south may have been insertions
in the place of old recesses.

 

1 Comp, Journals sub annis,
THE WALLS. 65

 

The upper stage of the gate between the buttresses is pierced by
three narrow loopholes, that in the middle being crossed. These are
partially restorations, for at one time two sash windows disfigured this
face, while a picture of Queen Elizabeth,’ set up about 1594, and
subsequently the royal arms, placed there in the mayoralty of Alder-
man Steptoe in 1664, covered the central loop. This royal picture
was sadly abused by a certain Michael Craddock, who was arraigned
for his critical remarks and made to give #5 to the poor. The arms
were the work of Walter Crocker, whose predecessor, Alexander
Crocker, enjoyed European fame as a ship-carver. On July 1, 1664,
the town agreed with Walter that—

‘If he shall for all future tymes be of good and honest behaviour, and approve
himself to be a compleate and sufficient workman in his profession, and at his
own costes shall make, carve, and coulour, according to arte and approbacon, the
Kings Majesties armes, and them set up (being of a sufficient proporcon) over
Bargate in the place where Queen Elizabeth’s picture formerly was fixed, and
also give sufficient security to the Towne to save them harmlesse from his charge,
that then he is to be admitted a free commoner to exercise his said arte in this
Towne: But if he shall not fulfill all and singular the conditions above said,

whereby he shall not be admitted as above said, then he shall have the said
Kings armes to his own use and benefitt,’

These arms, by which Walter Crocker purchased his freedom, were
removed in 1852. On the same stage there is a loophole in cach of the
narrower sides of the projection, also in part restorations in place of
modern sash windows.

We may now examine what are called in the court leet books
the ‘monuments at Bargate.’ First, there are the two lions? on lofty
pedestals, one on each side of the buttresses flanking the central arch-
way. These originally stood at the end of the bridge which crossed
the ditch here, and struck terror into the mind of a certain traveller
in 1635, who, speaking of the town as the ‘ neatest and completest in
all these western parts,’ describes his entering—

‘At the North gate thereof with no little fear, between the jaws of two ramping
lions and two thundering warriors, Exipat, that fearful giant, on the one side,
and brave Bevis of Southampton on the other, if above them had not been
placed our late renowned virtuous Queen Elizabeth [see above] to daunt their

courage and quell their fury, and to suffer peaceable passengers to have quiet
and safe entrance,’ 8

The earliest observed notice of lions at the Bargate occurs in the
court leet book of 1619, where is an order for their being varnished

 

1 Boke of Remembrances, fol. 182, January 1594-95.

2 See a very interesting paper on the ‘ Heraldry and Exterior Decorations
of the Bar Gate,’ by B. W. Greenfield, Esq., Barrister-at-law (Rayner, South-
ampton, 1875). 3 See Duthy, p, 440.

E

Upper
stage,
north
side,

Monu-
ments
at Bargate.
aldry.

66 THE WALLS.

 

to prevent them from rotting, the lions of that period being of wood;
their representatives of the present day having been cast in lead in
1743, during the mayoralty of Richard Raymond, Esq., whose name
is inscribed on their pedestals. They are said to have been the gift
of William Lee, Esq., son of Lord Chief Justice Lee, who received
the freedom of the borough in June that year."

Until lately the panel paintings of Sir Bevis and his giant esquire
Ascupart, referred to above, rested on the footing of the buttresses ;
Sir Bevis on the right hand, looking towards the Bar, with the date
£644 in the left-hand corner, probably that of the repainting ; in the
middle the letter M, the initial of the mayor that year; and in the
right-hand corner the date 1319, possibly a conjecture as to the
antiquity of the work replaced. The court leet books of 1635 and
1640 had presented these ‘monuments’ as much in decay. The
paintings—constantly referred to in descriptions of Southampton, as
by Samuel Pepys in 1662—have been touched up from time to time,
but have now been removed into the townhall in preference to any
further restoration—a matter rather to be regretted.

The heraldry of the Bargate has been elucidated for the first time
correctly by Mr. Greenfield in the treatise already mentioned. The
gate bears eleven shields on its northward projection, two in the
spandrels of the archway, and nine in a frieze of sunken panels carried
round the buttresses above the bold string-course which divides the
building into two stages. Of these nine, there are one upon the face
of each buttress, one in the space beyond each, and five between them.
The escutcheons in the spandrels probably belong (not of course the
blazonry) to the original construction, but those in the frieze may be
insertions. Unhappily, the tinctures on all the shields are nearly
obliterated: they should certainly be restored with judgment: mean-
while it may be well to describe them here,

We commence with the frieze. The shield to the east or extreme
left bears the cross of St. George of England; that to the extreme
right the cross of St. Andrew, for Scotland. In the middle of the
frieze, over the apex of the arch, is the coat of Noel: Or, fretty gules
a canton ermine, placed there in honour of two Noels, Viscounts
Campden, father and son, successively Lords-Lieutenant of the county
and town and county of Southampton: (1) Edward, who married
Elizabeth, daughter of Thomas Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton,
by whom, on the death of her father in 1667, he succeeded to the pro-
perty of Titchfield, received the freedom of the borough in 1675,

 

1 Mr. Greenfield thinks that they may have been the gift of one of the Leighs
of Testwood near Totton, whose coat he finds on the Bargate (pp. 7, 25).
THE WALLS. 67

 

becoming in the next year Lord-Lieutenant, and M.P. for Hants in
February 1678-79. Created Baron Noel of Titchfield in 1681 during
his father’s life, he was advanced to the Earldom of Gainsborough
in December 1682, after his father’s death in October that year.
(2) Wriothesley Baptiste, son of the last, was appointed to the Lord-
Lieutenancy when Viscount Campden, on his father’s resignation in
1684. In May 1685 he was returned to Parliament for the county of
Hants; in 1687 he resigned his Lieutenancy, and on the death of his
father in 1689 succeeded to the Earldom.

The shield on the eastern buttress bears the arms of Pawlett: Sadle,
three swords in pile point downwards, argent, pomels and hilts, or; in
honour, no doubt, of the first and second Dukes of Bolton. (1) Charles
Pawlett, son of John, Marquis of Winchester, who from November
1643 to October 1645 held out his house at Basing for the king; as
Lord St. John was elected M.P. for Hants to the Parliament of 1660
and 1661, and as Baron St. John of Basing became Lord-Lieutenant in
1667, holding that office till 1676, having received the freedom of
Southampton in 1668. He had succeeded his father as Marquis in
1674, and was again appointed Lord-Lieutenant in April 1689, being
created Duke of Bolton about the same time. (2) Charles, second
Duke, upon the death of his father in 1699, had been returned for the
shire in 1681, 1685, 1688, 1690, and 1695. In 1702 he became Lord-
Lieutenant and Lord Warden of the New Forest; in 1708 governor of
the Isle of Wight; and on the accession of George I. in 1714 he again
received the Lord-Wardenry and Lord-Lieutenancy, with other
appointments. He died in June 1722.

To the right of Pawlett is the shield of Tylney: Argent, a chevron
gules between three griffins’ heads erased gules with beaks or, Frederick
Tylney, of Rotherwick, in the county of Southampton, Esquire,
admitted burgess in 1676, and in August 1702 returned M.P., for the
borough; in the following month he presented to the Corporation a
large silver-gilt tankard. He again contested the borough, but un-
successfully, at the general election in 1705. He died in 1725, at the
age of eighty, having, among other charitable works, founded some
scholarships at Oxford, augmented several benefices, and been a bene-
factor to the city of Winchester.

To the right of Tylney is De Cardonnel: Argent, a chevron voided
azure between three trefoils slipped vert. Adam de Cardonnel, ad-
mitted a burgess in 1662, was in 16g0 excused serving the office of
Sheriff on account of his age. He was for some time collector of
customs at this port, and dying in January 1710-11 at the age of
ninety, was buried at God’s House. His son, Adam de Cardonnel,
secretary to the Duke of Marlborough, returned for the borough in
68 THE WALLS.

 

seven Parliaments between January 1700-1 and November 1710, was,
at the disgrace of Marlborough, expelled the House for corrupt practices
in 1712. No doubt the arms were on the Bargate before this year.
Adam de Cardonnel was a subscriber to the rebuilding of St. Mary’s
Church in 1711.

To the right of the escutcheon of Noel, already described, is that of
Fleming: Gules, a chevron between three owls argent. The Flemings
were for centuries connected with this town and neighbourhood (see
under Mayors, Conduits, &c.) Thomas Fleming, Solicitor- General in
1594, knighted in 1601, Chief-Justice of the King’s Bench in 1607, was
Recorder of Southampton while Solicitor-General, and was returned
for the borough to the Parliaments of October 1601 and March 1603-4.
His eldest son, Thomas, knighted in 1608, sat for the borough in 1614
and 1620-21. Edward, great-grandson of the last, of North Stoneham,
successfully contested the borough with Sir Charles Wyndham, knight,
of Cranbury, in 1689, but subsequently was unseated. His son Richard,
of North Stoneham, sat for the borough in 1710 and during twelve
successive years. It was probably in his honour that the Fleming
shield was placed on the Bargate.

The next shield on the right hand is attributed to the Leighs of
Testwood: Gules, a cross engrailed within a bordure engrailed argent.
Thomas Leigh, Esq., of Testwood, son of Sir John Leigh, Knt.,
who became possessed of Great Testwood through his marriage with
Elizabeth, daughter and heir of Sir Thomas West, Knt., second son
of Lord Delawarr, was admitted a burgess of Southampton in 1620.
The same compliment is recorded of Philip and Edward Leigh of
Testwood, Esqs., in 1659 and 1677.

The shield on the western buttress is that of Mill: Per fesse argent
and sable, a pale and three bears salient, two and one, counterchanged
muzzled and chained or. The escutcheon bears the Ulster badge, and
doubtless belongs to Sir John Mill of Newton-Bury, in the parish of
Eling, Hants, and of Camois Court, Sussex, Bart., so created December
31, 1619. He was the eldest son of Lewknor Mill, Esq., of Camois
Court, by Cicely, daughter of John Crook, Esq., of Southampton (see
under Mayors and M.P.s). Sir John Mill sat for the borough in the
Parliaments of 1624 and two succeeding years. He died in May 1648,
aged sixty-one years. The name of Mill is of constant occurrence on
the burgess roll of the town.

In the left spandrel of the arch we have the shield of Wyndham:
Azure, a chevron between three lions’ heads erased or. Sir Charles
Wyndham, Knt., who represented the town in Parliament from August
1679 to July 1698, was the son of Sir Edmond Wyndham, Knt., of
Kentsford, Somerset, one of the first who, in 1641, appeared in arms
THE WALLS. 69

 

for the king. Sir Charles married, in 1665, Jacoba, only child of
Major-General James Young, formerly one of the gentlemen of the
privy chamber to Charles I., and niece and heir to Dr. John Young,
Dean of Winchester, Master of St. Cross and owner of the Cranbury
estate. Sir Charles, who became tenant of the estate through his wife,
resided at Cranbury for upwards of forty years, and dying there in
1706, was buried at Hursley. On the death of Lady Wyndham in
1720, the property was sold to John Conduit, Esq., who successfully
contested the borough in 1734. On his decease in 1737, the Cranbury

estate was purchased by Thomas Lee Dummer, Esq., through whose.

family it passed to that of Chamberlayne.

On the right spandrel is the shield of Newland: Argent, on a chev-
ron, the upper part terminating in a cross pattée, three lesants. Benja-
min Newland, merchant, of London, knighted in August 1679, sat
in Parliament for this borough from February 1678-79, when he was
returned in company with Thomas Knollys, Esq., of Grove Place, till
July 1698. He married Ann, daughter of Robert Richbell, merchant,
of Southampton (see under Mayors and M.P.s). Sir Benjamin New-
Jand was possessed of the estate of Drayton, in the parishes of Farling-
ton, Widley, and Wymering, Hants, by purchase from Mary Richbell,
his sister-in-law, in 1689.

The south side of the Bargate presents a handsome but restored
elevation, the basement showing the archways of the central road-
way and of the posterns, with an entrance doorway both right and
left. Beyond that to the right are further remains, and there are
indications of work in advance on the east side of this door south-
ward.

In the upper stage, upon a bold string-course, are the four windows
of the townhall, restorations under Mr. Edward Roberts, F.S.A., each
of two lights and filled with stained glass, the gift of Mr. Edward
Lanham, a member of the Council in 1864-65, when the whole of
this front was cleared from a surface of rough-cast; the sashes of the
previous century were abolished, and hoods and corbels supplied to all
the arches and windows. Resting upon the string-course, and between
the middle windows, there is a niche, now occupied by a figure of
George III. in Roman costume; and above this is a sun-dial. The
whole front is surmounted by wide battlements on a somewhat lower
level than those of the north, with six embrasures, the westernmost of
which carries a watch-bell; the second and fifth merlons being pierced
with crossed loopholes. The whole of this front is the result of enlarge-
ment or re-facing, probably in the early part of the fourteenth century.
Its restoration, as mentioned above, was effected in the mayoralties of
Aldermen Brinton and Bowman, and was greatly due to the energy of

South side
of Bargate,
Details of

south side,

Prison.

Watch-
bell.

Niche.

70 THE WALLS.

 

Alderman, now Sir Frederick, Perkins, Knt. It was carried out by
Mr. Poole, then borough surveyor.

Taking now the outside details, the entrance doorway to the left
communicates with the modern police-station and with a staircase ad-
mitting to the hall above; much of this is ancient work. The police-
station is on the site of the old prison establishment at Bargate, which
also occupied a third of the gate itself. Repairs of the Bargate prison
and that of St. Michael’s (of which more hereafter) are mentioned in
the steward’s book of 1441 and in subsequent years.

In January 1553 (6 Ed. VI.) the house to the west of the Bargate—
the site of the present police-station—was assigned as ‘the counter’ for
debtors, the keeper receiving from each inmate sixpence for every meal
and twopence for his bed.1. The two departments of the prison establish-
ment continued side by side; but in March 1774, when it was determined
to carry a postern through the old prison, it was provided that a new
gao] should be made in God’s House Tower, the estimate for which
was given at £140. Of this sum £100 was advanced by the Com-
missioners of Paving and #40 charged on the county.

The watch-bell in the embrasure was one of three or four bells at
different stations in the town which answered one another in ringing
the watches or sounding alarms. In 1579 the court leet complained
that the watch-bell of the castle was not kept m order, and recom-
mended that one should be set on Bargate at the west end of the hall,
and that the bells should properly answer one another, ‘ for that yt is a
comfortable hearing.’ The present bell has the inscription and date,
‘In God is my hope. R.B. 1605.’

The niche is probably coeval with this face of the gate, but we do
not know how it was originally filled. In the mayoralty of John
Thornburgh, in 1705, it was ordered that a statue of her Majesty
Queen Anne be erected over the Bargate facing English (High) Street,
and that a sun-dial be placed over the statue. The above date and
mayor’s initials are still to be seen on the dial. It measured out for
the Queen below little more than a hundred years, for in 1809 her
memorial was dismounted and relegated to a niche in the Guildhall,
where it may still be seen, and the present statue of George III.,
imitated from that of the Emperor Hadrian in the British Museum,
was placed in its stead. It was the gift of John Henry Petty, second
Marquis of Lansdowne, who, presenting it to the Corporation, de-
scribed the figure as ‘bearing no mean resemblance to his Majesty.’
The statue was placed in the niche, where the Marquis had desired it
might stand, on September 12, 1809.

 

1 Boke of Remembrances, fol. 66.
THE WALLS. 71

 

The door of the eastern staircase bears the shield of the town arms Guildhall.
in facsimile of that placed there in the mayoralty of John Ayres in
1725. Ascending, we enter the Guildhall, an apartment constructed
within the shell of the gate, projection, and flanking towers in 1852,
under Mr. W. J. Elliott of Southampton, measuring 52 feet long by
40 feet in the broadest part, and fitted up as a court of justice; the
grand jury room, which had been in the northward projection, having
been at this time thrown into the hall, and a new room carried out to
the west for the accommodation of the grand jury. In this new room
the weekly petty sessions of the borough are held. Before the altera-
tion, the justices’ seat, with a picture of Solomon’s judgment above it,
was placed at the west end of the long and narrow hall. The picture
may still be seen in the adjoining room. The following entry concerns
it :—

‘May 7, 1725.—John Ayres, Esq., Mayor.—Ordered that M'. Mayor have
a new King’s arms painted in the Town hall, and the picture of Solomon’s
judgment refreshed and repaired and Bevis and Ascapart’s pictures painted
anew, and all the carpenter’s work relating thereto for 4 guineas and a half, at

which price the said M', Mayor has undertaken to procure the whole to be done,
and the same to be borne at the county charge.’

Immediately to the right of the hall as we enter is the niche con-
taining the statue of Queen Anne. Beyond this is a plain round-
headed arch belonging to the original Norman gate-house. Within
the flankings and projection are the usual arrangements of a court of
justice. On the western side is the entrance from the old side tower
staircase. It now connects the hall with the police premises below, and
may for centuries have served a similar purpose. Beyond this again,
and facing the entrance to the hall, are the doors into the apartment
constructed in 1852. On the south side are the four pointed windows
of Decorated aspect filled with stained glass (see above), descriptive of
the history of the borough, as represented by the shields and devices of
some of its early benefactors.

It is possible that the alterations to the gate on the south side in No Guild.
the first half of the fourteenth century may have been carried out to pa ber
provide a fixed Guildhall; or there may have been no such hal] till oe
after the octagonal front was projected. In the earlier history of the
gate, the space required for working the portcullises and drawbridge
would have left little room for civic purposes; but after the addition
on the north side the regulation of the defences may have been con-
fined within the projection, and thus ample room left for the hall.

The ordinances of the Guild-merchant (see below) make no refer-
ence to a Guildhall. The Guild meetings were held at different places
(ord. 4); the community assembled for the business ‘in a place pro-
Westward
ourse of
vails,

Arundel
ower.

72 THE WALLS.

 

vided,’ as if perhaps for each occasion (ord. 32); the common chest,
with the treasure and muniments, was kept in the chief alderman’s
(i.e., the mayor’s) house, or in that of the seneschal (ord. 35); in much
later times it was ordered to be kept in the Guildhall or Audit-house.

In the steward’s book of 1441, under the heading ‘ Bargatte,’ the
first observed notice occurs of a ‘town hall’ in repairs to the lead of
its roof: mention is also made of a new key for the ‘tresory dore in
the hall.’ A few years after (1468) we find the hall made a receptacle
for guns in an account of the distribution of artillery among the various
towers of the fortifications. ‘ Fyrst, in ye Guyld halle over ye Bargate
j gonne of Bras chawmbred of hymself. Item, in the same place ij
gonnes and vy chawmbres w' treselz to ye sam. Item, in the sam
plas ij gonnes w'owght chambres. The wheche ij gonnes lay in ij
towrs the wheche beth next to ye seyd Bargate estward to seynt
Denys towr.’

We now follow the westward course of the walls. At about 100
feet from the gate is the site of a half-round tower, which in 1468
seems to have carried ‘ij gonnes wt ij chawmbres.’ A few yards be-
yond this, the wall, destroyed to this point in 1854, is traced behind
the houses on its way to Arundel Tower, a drum now in ruins, at the
north-west angle of the walls, 22 feet in diameter and from 50 to 60
feet high. In 1490-91 an account of repairs gives the following names:
from the ‘ Corner tower next Hille to Cacchecold tower and about the
walles to Bridelles gate,’! Corner tower being that which was after-
wards called Arundel.2 The court leet books of 1587 and following
years presented ‘Corner tower on north side Catchcold’ as greatly
damaged by the sea, which washed the west wall from this point to
the re-entering angle south of the castle. After many dolorous pre-
sentments of this tower and of the walls in its vicinity, of the necessity
of the banks under the tower being mended to prevent its falling,
together with one or two announcements about 1627 that the wall
without Arundel Tower—hsas fallen down,’ the House (i.e., the Town
Council) authorised certain freemasons named to rebuild the corner of
the wall and repair the buttress. The wall was to measure in length
40 feet, to be 12 feet high, 4 feet in thickness at the base and 3 at top.

 

1 MS. Temp, T,. Overey, sub anno,

2 It is not possible to identify all the towers round the walls, though very
many names occur in the town books. Some were called after their lessees, for
the towers were generally leased out by the Corporation whether to private
individuals or for purposes of trade. In 1517 one of the towers was let to Master
Dr, Fawne, Rector of All Saints, at twelvepence a year, ‘as long as it shall please
the said doctor to occupy it, except in time of war.’ Similarly we have Overey’s
and Brodock’s Towers, Shoemakers’ and Coopers’ Towers, and the same tower
may from time to time have gone under different names,
THE WALLS. 73

 

The masons were to receive £24, and enter into a bond for the security
of their work for ten years.) This was in 1651. But the court leet
continued to present the tower itself, till in 1658 the word fiat is
written in the margin, as if no more delay could be hazarded. But it
does not appear that very much was done. The level within the walls
here is some 30 feet or more above that of the road or beach below.

About 130 fect southward from the north-west angle is ‘ Catch- Catchcold,
cold,’ which gave its name toa plot of ground from Arundel Tower to
the old castle enceinte.? From ‘ Catchcold (2.e., the tower) to Bidels-
gate the walls are much decayed’ in 1587. In 1615, Arundel, St. Denys
at the north-east angle of the town, all the west towers, and ‘ Catch-
coald’ were to be Jooked to for various reasons, and great stones were
to be laid at the foot of the latter to act as breakwaters. Catchcold,
which, with the adjacent curtain for some feet, Mr. Clarke considers
to be a Perpendicular addition to what seems to be a Decorated wall,
is a fine half-round tower, about 20 feet in diameter and 30 in height,
with bold machicolations at the level of the connecting wall. A path
from the castle chapel, common time out of mind to the town’s people,

Jed into Catchcold, and from thence to Bargate.*

South of Catchcold a flight of steps, ult against the face of the Albion
wall in 1853, ascends from the western shore road some 30 feet to a Sina
point nearly 100 feet from the tower. From thence the wall, in sub-
stance Norman, runs obliquely south-west some 60 feet to a rectangular
buttress heading a salient, the angles of which are crossed with low
pointed arches pierced as garde-robes. About 20 feet to the south of
this, the north wall of the castle baily struck the town wall, the
abutment of a plain rectangular buttress supporting the junction,

The walls, probably of Norman date and about 38 feet high, now Town and
continue southward some 370 feet, being common both to the town See iet
and castle, as far as the remains of a tower at the south-west angle of the
castle baily. Somewhat more than half-way the bonding in the face
of the curtain is broken for about 15 feet perpendicular in two lines,
giving something the appearance of a coped buttress cut back flush
with the wall. In a straight line with this, foundations as of a strong
wall have been discovered in the rear, curiously coinciding with a line
of wall drawn in Speed’s (1596) plan, though too much reliance must
not be placed on him, as he totally omits the north ballium wall, unless
this line be blundered for it. Close south of this broken bond there
commences a series of six rectangular buttresses of various dimensions
and at slightly different intervals, the first three being additions upon
the Norman wall, the rest perhaps original, though all have been

 

1 Journal. 2 Terrier of 1634. 3 C. L, Book, 1579.
Vaulted
chambers
and Castle

Quay.

Castle
baily wall.

74 THE CASTLE.

 

partially renewed. The fourth of these buttresses, about 13 feet broad,
bears on its face two slight traces of broken bonding. Sir Henry
Englefield described it as having a doorcase in it, high above the foot of
the wall, which, he conjectured, was the water gate of the castle. This
buttress divides a portion of the wall which is very interesting. Imme-
diately to its north is a vaulted chamber, lying north and south, 55 feet
3 inches long by 19 feet 6 inches wide and 25 feet. in height, the only
indication of which from without is a narrow pointed window like a
large loophole. On entering through this aperture the floor is dis-
covered to be on a higher level than the ground outside; the roof is a
perfect wagon, the ribs of which, now ruthlessly cut away, sprang from
Norman corbels, which have mostly disappeared—a dilapidation which
occurred about 1775. A doorway leading outward to sea exists in the
wall to the north of the logp, but is completely masked, no trace of it
being observed from outside. The communication from the vault to
the surface above, some 30 feet higher than its floor, is not apparent:
movable steps were no doubt used for its water gate. To the south of
this vault, and cut off from it externally by the wide buttress mentioned
before, the wall exists in two stages for about 32 feet as far as the sixth
and last buttress. It-is divided horizontally by a plain string, above
which are indications of two round-headed windows, and below two
narrow apertures similar to that before described. There must have
been chambers in this part of the wall beneath the modern ‘ Castle
Gardens.’ Outside this part of the castle wall there was probably in
ancient times something of a quay. In the Close Rolls of John and
Henry III. we frequently read of the ‘ Castle Quay,’ as if it actually
belonged to the castle, which West Quay, separated by a portion of
the town, never did. The occurrence of these chambers would seem
independently to suggest that there must have been a quay or landing-
place beneath them. This point will be further touched when we come
to the ‘King’s houses.’ About 20 feet from this double-staged wall
are the remains of the tower at the south-west angle of the baily.

The Castle.

The castle wall, which we will now follow, turned nearly due east,
portions of it still existing behind the houses on the south of Castle
Gardens. At about 110 feet from the south-west angle it crossed
Castle Lane (south). Here was the south gate of the baily, demolished
about 1770. Beyond this the wall continued eastward some 40 feet

 

1 The ‘Castle Quay’ does not seem to have been repaired by the townsfolk.
The Sheriff of the county was occasionally, as in 1218, ordered to repair it with
the king’s cellars in the castle,
THE CASTLE. 75

 

till it struck the lofty mound of the keep, deeply intrenched and boldly
scarped, round which it described three parts of a circle for about 400
feet, the hill’s diameter being 200; it then started off obliquely with
a north-eastern inclination for about 60 feet, then in a north-westerly
for another 85 feet, crossing at this point Castle Lane (north), where
was the principal gate of the castle, destroyed also in the last century,
though a fragment may still be seen on the north of the Jane. Beyond
this the wall made a curve to the north-west till it struck the curtain,
as above described, south of Catchcold. A considerable and curious
portion of this enceinte remains, the foundations of which, on square
piers and rounded arches, were sunk some 15 feet into the ground.
The wall is described as having stood ‘on the top of a high bank with
a deep ditch at its foot,! but towards the end of the last century the
surface was lowered considerably, and the foundations of the baily wall,
denuded of earth, have since exhibited an abnormal and extensive
arcade of fourteen or more perfect arches, some of them slightly pointed,
at a height of about 12 feet above the present level, the span of the
arches averaging g feet and the piers about 7 feet square. This founda-
tion carried a battlemented wall, some of the ashlar of which may still
be detected.”

The keep, of which nothing now remains, was probably a bold
shell of masonry with a chemise or encircling wall about it. It stood
upon the southern front of the lofty semicircular area, proudly domi-
nating the town, and forming part of the enceinte of the castle fortifi-
cations, according to the usual arrangement. We have no earlier
account of it than that of its rebuilding under Sir John Arundel, when
a patent, dated April 9, 1378, directed Henry Marmesfeld, John
Pyperyng, and Richard Baillyf to procure the erection as quickly as
possible of a certain tower on the ‘old castell hill’ with two gates, a
mantelet, and barbican of stone, that is, an encircling wall about it with
an outwork before the gate.? Material was to be procured and carriage
provided at the king’s cost, the charges for which would be met imme-
diately; and all necessary stonemasons, carpenters, or other workmen

 

1 Buller’s Englefield, p. 47.

2 In 1856 this interesting work was threatened with destruction, together
with other remains of walls and towers, However, a meeting convened in Janu-
ary by the mayor (Mr. S. Payne), supported by Mr. Kell, Mr. Stebbing, Mr.
Brannon, Mr. Falvey, and others, determined to address the Town Council on
the subject. In consequence of this movement the borough continues to possess
some of the most singular and interesting architectural remains in the kingdom,
See Journal of Brit. Arch. Assoc. xii. 207.

3 Super quendam montem vocatum ‘oldcastellhill’ quandam turrim de petra
et calce, et duas portas in eddem turri, et unum mantelettum cum quodam barbi-
cano de petra et calce circa dictam turrim, Gc, (Pat. 1 R. ii. p. 6. m. 7).

The keep.

Rebuilt.
chapel.

aily,

76 THE CASTLE.

 

were to be taken from the counties of Somerset, Dorset, Wilts, South-
ampton, Oxon, Berks, Surrey, and Sussex, and kept at the works as
long as needful at the king’s wages.

Leland in 1546 says of it: ‘The glorie of the castelle is in the
dungeon [keep], that is both larg, fair, and very stronge, both by worke
and the site of it’! Speed, writing at the end of the same century,
describes it as ‘ most beautiful, in forme circular, and wall within wall ;
the foundation upon a hill so topped that it cannot be ascended but by
stairs.22 In 1599 Hortensio Spinola, in his report on the southern ports,
described the castle of Southampton as being strong, with sixty pieces
of artillery and 100 soldiers.2 Yet in 1618 the keep was ruinous:* in
1635 the traveller quoted in a former page speaks of it as an ‘old
ruinated castle, on a high mounted hill, environed with a round strong
wall.’

Within the baily was the chapel of the castle, and apparently
towards the north-west of the enclosure, for we find it occasionally
reckoned in the beat of the town watch. Thus about 1504, when pro-
vision was made to receive the king’s grace (Henry VII.), four aldermen
with their ‘vynteners’ or inferior officers were assigned to see the
town in good order, their wards being thus set, starting from the
castle southward, and so going round the walls. The first, from the
castle wall to the site of the old wool-bridge; from that to the Friar’s
tower and garret; from thence to the Eastgate; and thence to the
chapel in the castle.® This chapel, dedicated to St. George, had an
endowment by royal letters of #10 per annum on the customs of the
town. Among the chaplains were Friar John Bury ;° Sir John Chewe,”
September 20, 1485; Thomas Vasse, August 2, 1508; Robert Tawley,
December 23, 1572; John Clerk,’ on death of last, 1526; he was
there ten years later. A chantry was founded here by Edward IV, in
1478, and in 1553 Nicholas Hill, incumbent of the chantry, received
a pension of £6.

It would appear that some dismantling of the baily had taken place
at the close of the fifteenth century, when the ‘castle wall’ is said to
have been pulled down,® and by 1550 the ‘ Castle Green’ had become a
place where rubbish might or might not be shot; in 1591 it had been

 

1 Itinerary, ill, 107. 2 Theatre of Great Britain, reprint 1650, p. 13.

3 Cal. State Papers.

4 See below, where also other details,

5 Lib. Remembrance. i. f. 14, 27.

6 Dec. 13, 1483. Pat. 1 R. III. p.31,m. 25 (1). 7 Rot. Parl, vi. 377 a.

8 Papers of Hen, VIII. sub dat., and Valor, Eccl,

9 After the last passage given from Dr, Speed he continues : ‘13 Hen. VII.
[14y8-99].—The castle wall was pulled down,’ The remainder of his chapter
is given below.
THE CASTLE. a7

 

for some years let to the butchers by Captain Parkinson—no doubt
the governor—and the court Jeet jury presented that the ‘sheep have
spoiled the hill’—that is, the hill of the keep—‘ most ruinously ;’ they
beg that no more sheep or cattle be allowed there; they also state that
the windows and gates of the castle tower lie open to all the inhabitants,
whereof they desire reformation. This letting of the herbage was
further presented as a grievance in 1594, on the score that Captain
Parkinson had ten years previously granted it to the town for the term
of his life; it seems also that right of passage through the castle to the
archery butts had been questioned by the tenant.

These butts, at one time called the great butts, though it is difficult The butts,
to see how a proper range could have been secured, were on the east
side of the Castle Green, because the St. Laurence people were constantly
being presented for throwing refuse from their back-doors by the castle
butts The ditch at this part may therefore have been filled up,
or the butts may have been in the ditch, a not unlikely position if
length could have been found. It is also possible that the range may
not have been long, as in 1587 these butts were pronounced ‘ meetest
for the younger people.’

The castle was the seat of military government and defence in the
Middle Ages. It was also in the castle that the king’s justices itinerant
held their court.’

The following notices concern the early governors, their duties, or Notices.
the castle itself.

In February 1205 (6 John) RoBerT DE CANTILUPE was custos of Constables.
the town. In the same year the constable was ordered by writ to
deliver to Brian de I’Isle a tun of wine from the royal store. In the
next year he was ordered to restore wine detained from a burgess of
Rochelle, and to release a ship which he had seized in error, it appear-
ing under certificate of the mayor of Rochelle that the vessel belonged
to that port.

In April 1206 (7 John) he was charged with the duty, in common
with Walter Fortin and William de Langetot, of seizing for the king’s
use ships at Southampton and neighbouring ports. The vessels were to
be capable of carrying eight horses each at least, and were to be
assembled at Portsmouth by Whitsun Eve. They were to be provided
with bridges and hurdles for the landing and protection of the animals,
The names of the owners were to be enrolled, as also how many
mariners were in each ship and how many horses each could carry.
Vessels happening to be laden were at once to discharge their cargoes ;
owners who hesitated were to be taken for enemies.

 

1 Court Leet books, 1574, 1577, 1579, &c.°
2 See document above, p, 49.
78 THE CASTLE.

 

The next year the constable received from William Briewere, the
king’s forester, under writ from Winchester, twenty rafters from the
royal wood of ‘Knutes wude’ for the repair of the king’s hall at South-
ampton.

In 1213 (14 John) Wittram Briewere received the county of
Southampton, with the custody of Southampton Castle, during the
king’s pleasure.

ApAM DE Port was governor? in 1213.

In 1215 (16 John) two trusty messengers, Thomas de Erdington
and Henry de Ver, were dispatched from the king to WILLIAM DE
St. Joun (son of the last), constable of Southampton Castle, with
instructions which the king had been unwilling to commit to writing.
The constable was to expect other messengers the following day,
meanwhile he was to receive as certain what he would hear from those
now sent, or from Thomas alone if the other could not be present,
concerning the safe custody of the royal castles and person. A similar
visit was directed to various other officials in different places.

A few years later (1222, 7 H. III.) the needs of Southampton Castle
had to yield to those of Winchester; and the bailiffs of William
Briewere were directed to deliver to the mayor of Winchester, for the
repairs of the castle there, the sixty beams from ‘ Cnichte wude’ which
the Prior of the Hospital had given the king for the repairs of South-
ampton Castle.

A portion of the castle at least was dilapidated in 1246 (30 H. III),
and the townspeople were fined 270 marks for withdrawing several
duties belonging to the castle, and for selling timber, lead, and stone
from that now demolished building.?

On June 17, 1273 (2 Ed. I.), the custody of the town was committed
to ADAM DE WInTon # during the king’s pleasure.

In 1330-31 (4 Ed. III.) the custody of Southampton and Christ-
church castles was granted to THomas DE West (afterwards Lord la
Warre), with other holdings, at a rent of £435. In the next year the
custody of these castles, together with the manor and park of Lynd-
hurst, and the new forest, the hundred of Redbridge, and forty shillings
rent paid by the abbot and convent of Reading, and other perquisites,
were renewed to him for life at the annual rent of #130, the sum
generally maintained.°

In October 1338 the ‘French’ invasion occurred (see below, last

 

1 The above are from printed Patent and Close Rolls.

2 So Dugdale Bar. i. 463, but his reference (Pat. 15 John, p. i. m. 9) ap-
pears to be faulty : the appointment is not on the Roll,

3 Madox, Exchq. i. 568. * Fines Rolls, 2 Ed. L., m. 19,

5 Rot, Orig. Abbrev.
THE CASTLE. 79

 

chapter), immediately after which the town was seized into the king’s
hands, in active censure on the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses, who had
fled before the enemy. It was then} committed to JoHN pz Scurzs
and Tuomas Conpray, to hold during pleasure, on October 12. The
commission (as are the following documents) is tested by Edward,
afterwards the Black Prince, who had himself been left guardian of
England in his father’s absence at the ripe age of nine years. On
November 10 Joun pe Patton and JoHn pe BoKLanp 2 were com-
missioned in the same terms; and on November 13th, among other
steps taken, John de Hampton, Walter de Estcote, and others, were
commissioned to inquire into the loss of the king’s wools by fire; how
much, and of what quality, had been left after the enemy had retired.

Under one influence or other the mayor and bailiffs recovered heart,
and humbly begged for the restoration of their town and liberties ;
receiving them back on March 15, 1339, apparently on no harder
terms than that they should do their duty in future, and hold the town
vigorously against the foe;* and orders occur to John de Flete, clerk,
keeper of the arms in the Tower of London, to send forthwith all kinds
of weapons for the use of the town.

EpMuND DE La Becur, RicHarD DE PEULE, and STEPHEN DE
BiTTERLE were appointed chief guardians, for the safe custody of the
town, with a certain number of men at arms, on April 12, 1339, and
on the same day Philip de Thame, Prior of the Knights Hospitallers in
England, was desired to send thirty men-at-arms as an auxiliary, to
remain in the town, or at St. Denys’s Priory, or close at hand, in readi-
ness against any foreign attack. Robert atte Barre was the king’s
receiver and victualler to the troops at Southampton, May 12; Nicholas
atte Magdalene being appointed to the same office, June 11.

Tuomas Beaucuamp, Earl of Warwick, was next made constable
or chief guardian; his commission, running in the name of the Black
Prince, is dated Kennington, July 13, 1339 (13 Ed. III.)?’ The guar-
dianship was committed to him from the Monday (July 26) after the
Feast of St. James for a quarter of a year. He was to have with him
a hundred men-at-arms, their quality specified, fifty being of his own
men. He had power to muster the men-at-arms of the Prior of the
Hospitallers, and those of Berkshire, and others who should be sent
to aid in keeping the town. The inhabitants had in considerable

 

1 Rot. Orig., 12 Ed, IIL, rot. 15. 2 Ibid., rot. 17.

3 Ibid., rot. 30, # Ibid., 13 Ed. IIL, rot. 4. ® Ibid., rot. 29, 38.
® Rot. Alemanniz, 13 Ed. III, m, 8, m. 11,

The original document was purchased at a public sale in London in 1849
by R. Laishley, Esq., then mayor, and presented to the Corporation, It hangs
in the Council-chamber, See also Rot, Alemannie, 13 Ed, III, m. 6.

7
80 THE CASTLE.

 

numbers deserted the place, and the Earl was enjoined to compel the
return of the fugitives, on pain of forfeiture of their goods; while #50
in silver were granted towards repairs. The Earl accordingly at once
issued a proclamation on the day he received this indenture. By the
roll of Nicholas atte Magdalene, he appears to have entered the town
with his retinue of fifty men-at-arms and fifty archers on July 25, and
to have remained till August 25th.?

On August 29, four days after the retirement of the Earl, Brother
Puitre pe Tuame, Prior of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem,
superior of the Knights-Hospitallers in England, was appointed guar-
dian with similar powers; and on September 15 a further effort was
made by royal proclamations and threats to induce the return of the
burgesses and inhabitants.”

On November 3 the same year (1339) STEPHEN DE BiTTERLE and
Witit1amM bE WesToN, sergeants-at-arms, were appointed chief
guardians to superintend the men-at-arms and archers of the counties
of Berks and Wilts, assigned for the defence of the town.’

In the same regnal year (13 Ed. III.) Sir Ricnarp Ta.zor re-
ceived the guardianship, with fifty men-at-arms and one hundred
archers, at the king’s wages, to be paid him in advance. He was him-
self to receive a guerdon of £100, and £100 in part payment of an
old debt, and was enjoined to see the town fortified at the expense of
the inhabitants, with help from the king if necessary. The Bishop of
Winchester, the Prior of St. Swithin, and the Abbot of Hyde, were
desired to arm their men in the manors nearest to Southampton, and
to be ready to enter and defend the town if required. And further,
two pinnaces, one belonging to Millbrook, another to Roger Nor-
maund,# were assigned to wait on the commands of Mons. Richard
in the port of the town. He was to take order about the fugitive
burgesses. Commission at the same time was given to Stephen de
Bitterlye and William de Weston, sergeants-at-arms, to take timber
and other commodities from owners, at a certain price, for the safety
of the town. All the arms in the place, of whatever kind,® were to be
delivered by list to the guardian, and a writ of attendance was directed
to the Sheriff of the county requiring him to provide Mons. Richard
with all necessary supplies.®

 

1 An order was also issued on the day of the Earl’s appointment (July 10)
to the Sheriff of the county to make proclamation and compel the return of the
people, on pain of confiscation of their goods,

2 Rot. Alemanniz, 13 Ed. III., m, 5 and m, 4.

3 Ibid., m. 1. # See under M.P.s,

5 Item qe les espringalx, engyns, arblastes, actines, launces, payneys,
blasouns, targes, purkernels, fer, plum, esteantz en la dite vile, &c,

® Rot. Parl. ii, 108 4,
THE CASTLE. 8I

 

After this, on July 4, 1342, the Prior or St. Swirnin, Win-
chester, and the Ansor of Hype were in commission as guardians
against forcign enemies.!

Joun pe BzeaucHamp of Warwick received the custody of the
castle, &c., for good service? in 33 Ed. III. (1359-60).

Henry PEVEREL was appointed guardian® April 10, 1360, and
desired to repair the fortifications, which were in much need of it:
within two years he died seized of lands and tenements in the town of
Southampton, as well as, among other possessions, the manor of Lynd-
hurst, and holdings in Mansbridge and Peniton, and of Middleton and
Chilworth manors.

Ricuarp Pempripce * succeeded (35 Ed, III. 1361-62), receiving
the custody of the castle for life, with that of the manor and park of
Lyndhurst, the keepership of the New Forest and of the hundred of
Redbridge, together with the forty shillings rent from a tenement
in the forest paid by the Abbot of Reading, at the annual rent of £130.
He was to have the burden of repairs, but in the next year the king,
as a mark of affection, remitted for his life £40 and forty marks from
the rent.>

On June 12, 1369 (43 Ed. III.), Huco pe Estcore® was appointed
captain, with full powers of arresting all rebels against the king or the
government of the town; his attention was also called to all regrators,
artisans, or workmen, who should offend against the several statutcs
respecting them. No time was specified for the duration of his office.
The captaincy of the castle or town, and the custody, wardenry, or
guardianship were not always identical appointments.

Atmaric DE St. AManp’ was appointed guardian on August 13
the same year, and by letters of that date, directed to the keepers of
the peace and arrayers of men-at-arms in the county of Wilts, &c.,
order was given for 100 men-at-arms and 200 archers to be sent to
Southampton. Two days after (August 15) Almaric was confirmed as
captain and guardian, always to be ready to resist the king’s enemies
from France.

In the next year, August 22, 1370 (44 Ed. III.), Huco pz Esrore,
Knt., and Joun Putmounp, mayor,® were appointed to array all
men sound in body in the town and suburbs for defence ‘against our
French enemies, who have often invaded and burnt towns on the coast :’

 

1 Pat, 16 Ed. IIl., p. 2, m. 34. 2 Rot. Orig. Abbrev., p. 255.
° Pat. 34 Ed. IIL, p. 1, m. 21, 4 Pat. 35 Ed, TM., ps 3) my 25,
5 Rot. Orig. Abbrev., p. 258. 6 Pat. 43 Ed. IIL, p. 2, m. 44.

7 Tbid., m. 23. At the same time men-at-arms and archers were ordered
for Portsmouth. Warin de l’Isle was captain and custos there.
8 Pat, 44 Ed, IIL, p. 2, m. 5, a tergo.
82 THE CASTLE.

 

 

men too feeble to serve were to find substitutes. Under the same year
payment of £2 occurs to John Tipet,* valet of the king’s chamber,
lately sent into Hants, Wilts, Berks, and Oxon, to collect and train
archers, and bring them to Southampton to be ready against invasion.

In the 46 Edward III. (1372-73), JOHN DE FoxLe? received for
life the custody of the castle, with the other emoluments as in the case
of Pembridge, but at the full rent of £130, from which his executors
were cleared Michaelmas 1382, the grant being renewed in the fiftieth
and fifty-first years.

The next year (1 R. II. 1377) was one of singular trial and glory to
the town, under the guardianship of Sir Joun pe ARUNDEL,‘ who
was appointed on July gth, to have with him 100 men-at-arms and 100
archers, who were to be gathered from any quarter and retained at
the king’s pay. We have already mentioned the works at the castle
under this governor.

Ivo Firz-Waryn was governor of the town 1 Henry IV. (1399).°

Epwarp, Earn or Ruttanp, who appears to have held the
honours which went with the castle of Southampton in the latter years
of Richard II., had been restored to those emoluments, and was holding
the castle of Southampton towards the close (1411) of the reign of
Henry IV.°

In 1414 Ricuarp Spicer, Esq., with forty archers, was appointed
for the safe keeping of the king’s carracks, ships, and vessels in the
port, for a quarter of a year, against invasion.

In the next year (1415) Joun PopHam was constable of the castle,
and to his custody Richard, Earl of Cambridge, Henry, Lord le Scrope
of Masham, and Sir Thomas Grey were committed on charge of
high treason, for which they were executed.”

Possibly HumpHrey, Duke or Gioucesrer, murdered February
28, 1447 (25 H. VI.), was constable of the castle, as he died seized
of the lordships which went with it.

Joun Horow was constable, with the honours and emoluments
next below described, in the time of Richard III. (1483-85).

Sir Joun Cuerne, Knt., received the appointment March 3,
1486 (1 H. VII.), with the wages of £10 per annum out of the customs
of the port; he was also made constable of Christchurch Castle, steward

 

Issue Roll, sub anno,

Rot, Orig. Abbrev. for 46 and 51 Ed. III., and Pat. 50 Ed, III., p. 2, m. 27.
Memorand. Rolls, Mich. record, 6 R. II. rot. 24.

Pat. 1 R. IL, p. 1, m. 20. See further, under date, in last chapter.

Pat. 1 H.1V., p. 5, m. 23.

Memorand, Rolls, Mich. record, 13 H. IV. rot. 5.

Rot. Parl, iv. 66. See further below, last chapter.

1G ok ODO WY
THE CASTLE. $3

 

of the lordships and manors of Christchurch, Ringwood, and Hunton,
keeper of the New Forest, with custody of the manor, and wages of
fourpence a day out of the customs. Other stewardships were granted
him at the same time.!

In the latter part of this reign THomaAs THomas was constable; he
was excepted from the general pardon in the first year of Henry VIII.
(April 30, 1509), but received it a month later (May 30). He died
shortly after.

Sir Wrii1AM Sanpis, Knt. was appointed, vice the last, on Janu-
ary 10, 1510, at the salary of £10. This patent being invalid, the
office was regranted him April g, 1512.7

In 32 Henry VIII. (1540) Sir THomas Wriotues.ey, Knt.,
afterwards Earl of Southampton, was made constable of the castle.?

In the latter quarter of this century Caprain Parxinson (see
above) was in command. He seems to have been no great friend to
the town, especially if a petition refers to him, bearing date about
1599, in which the mayor, &c., appeal to the Council for redress against
James Parkinson, captain of Calshot Castle, who detained ships at the
castle under pretence of castle dues, and forbade them going up to the
town, ‘to the ruin of its trade and custom.’

In 1616 Sir Ropert Lanp was captain at twopence per day; but
the castle was falling more and more into a neglected and ruinous
condition.

In 1618 the ruined castle, its site and ditches, passed by a grant of Site
King James I. (July 16) in consideration of a sum of £2078, os. 13d., oa
to Sir James Ouchterlony and Richard Garnard, citizen and cloth-
worker of London, who in the next month (August Io) consigned their
interest to William Osey, of Basingstoke, who in his turn made it over
to George Gollop, of the town and county of Southampton, merchant,
on July 10, 1619 (17 James I.) In 1636 (14th March—11 Charles I.)
George Gollop obtained the royal grant * of the castle and its ditches to
himself and heirs at the yearly rent of thirteen shillings and fourpence.
The property remained in the Gollop family some few years. Under 1650
we find Peter Gollop in possession, and on October 11 that year he
gave permission to Major Peter Murford, commandant of the town,
to take such stones from the castle as he might think needful for the
repair of the fortifications.®

Subsequently to this “the site became parcelled out to several
“people who have built houses and made gardens upon the ground;

 

1 Materials for Hist. of Hen, VIL, i. 344.
? Brewer’s letters, &c., of Hen, VIII., under dates. 3 Dugd. Bar., ii, 383,
4 Pat, 11 Charles L., pt. 8, 5 Journal, October 11, 1650,
The
walls

resumed.

Biddle’s

gate.

84 THE CASTLE.

 

“ and the ditch of it is converted into gardens to some houses in the
“town that lay round it. The hill on which the castle stood remains,
“and has a summer-house upon it built with the materials of the old
“castle: this was formerly a windmill. There is enough of the walls
“left to shew the compass of it ; and within its precincts some arched
“vaults have been found in digging the foundation of houses, &c.,
“which some people fancy were private ways to other parts of the
“town, but I take them to have been magazines and storehouses for
“the use of the castle. There is one ina garden adjoining to the town
wall.”

Subsequently to Dr. Speed’s death in 1781 the castle hill was pur-
chased from Mr. Watson in 1804 by Lord Wycombe, afterwards (May
7, 1805) Marquis of Lansdowne—elected burgess August 21, 1805—
who resided near Peartree Green. On his coming into the family estates
he laid out large sums of money on the castle hill, and by degrees
erected an extensive castellated mansion of brick and stucco, which
appears to have contained within it some remnant of the old fortress,
On his death, November 15, 1809, his successor and half-brother,
whose great delight was in driving about with four foresters not much
bigger than Newfoundland dogs, eventually sold the mansion for
valuable building material. It was put up for sale July 1816, together
with the freehold site of the castle, having a frontage towards the
river of 277 feet... The mansion was taken down in 1818, when the
mound was lowered;? and in 1823-24 Zion Chapel (now Zion Hall)
was erected, and opened June g, 1824—Rev. J. Crabbe, minister—on
the site of the Norman keep.

We may now return to the town walls. Starting from the south-
west angle of the baily, we immediately leave the high level of the
castle platform and cross what was the mouth of the ditch. The wall,
which is here low and fragmentary, now runs south-west, at an angle
of about 18 degrees, to a tower heading the salient, at a distance of
some 100 fect from the baily, into the remains of which one of the
small houses in Lansdowne Place is built. It then runs southward for
about 80 feet, where we should expect another tower, and re-enters
sharply to the east, so as to cover Biddle’s gate, which was set some 50
feet back.

This gate, variously called West gate next the castle, and even
Castle gate, and ultimately Biddle’s gate, is described as having been

 

1 Hants Telegraph, June 24, 1816,
2 In 1822 a silver penny of Offa was found at the castle keep with the name of
the moneyer, BANHARD, in two lines, It is preserved in the Hartley Institute.
THE ARCADE. 85

 

“merely an arch in the wall,’ ‘a low gate with a pointed arch, over
which are the brackets of two machicolations.!

Biddle’s gate appears to have been a favourite place for depositing
refuse, although one of the chief inlets to the town. In 1511 his
Majesty was expected that way, hence, though a poor man had already
been set to make ‘clene the doyng hyll at the Bedelles yatte,’ receiving
twelvepence for his pay, so great an event deserved an extra scrub.
“Item, paid for the reddyng of the Bedelles yatt at the Kynges comyng,
uj." In short, our ancestors were not over-nice. Suffice it to say,
that sewers, drains, and other conveniences did not receive the atten-
tion which civilised life now exacts. Latrines placed near the gates
—there was one by Biddle’s gate—serving for the mass of the towns-
people, were constantly requiring attention, which not being paid—a
catastrophe of common occurrence—the indignant court leet jury had
frequently to complain of the state of the walls and streets as ren-
dered ‘corrupt, verie filthie, and noyssom to passe by.’ Let us leave
this quickly.

We are now upon the ancient quay of the town. From the north- Ancient
west angle of the fortifications the sea washed the foot of the wall as 1”
far as the turning in to Biddle’s gate till within the last thirty years;
for the handsome roadway beneath the western wall is of recent con-
struction, having been due chiefly to the exertions of the late Rev.
T. L. Shapcott, a former vicar of St. Michael’s. The ancient quay on
which we are supposed to be standing was of considerable extent.
Speed’s map (1596) makes the shore extend to Bugle Tower, the remains
of which are just beyond the house of Madame Maés. If this be
taken as accurate, a length for the whole shore of about 700 feet is
given. What was distinctively called West Quay was projected some
distance into the sea like a broad pier opposite West gate. Much of
this land frontage deserves special attention.

Immediately below the site of Biddle’s gate an arcade commences, Town wall.
which is believed to be perfectly singular and unlike anything in
England ;° it stretches for some 260 feet southward. Beyond this
the wall passes behind houses for some 120 feet, coming occasionally
into view, till we arrive at the opening into Collis’s Court, where to
the left we observe the picturesque fragment of a tower, three sides of
an octagon, the front being carried up from a broad and bold rectangular
buttress, which has its hollow angles crossed by arches to support the
other sides. Fifty feet farther is West gate, bevond which the wall

 

1 Buller’s Englefield, p. 16. 2 Steward’s books, sub annis.
3 On this construction see Viollet-le-Duc’s ‘ Walls of Avignon” (Military
Architecture, ed. Parker, p. 149, &c.)
Towers
destroyed,

Pilgrim's
Pit Tower,

86 THE ARCADE.

 

passes within the garden of Madame Maés’s premises for some 230
feet to the remains of Bugle Tower.

This line of defence was strengthened by several towers, three! of
which at least were in the arcade; for on April 7th, 1775, Mr. Martin
of the Long Rooms, who catered for the rank and fashion of the place,
obtained leave to take down parts of three round towers on the West
Quay opposite his own houses; and on June 2d further permission
to remove the top of the wall over ‘ Beidles gate,’ which appeared to
be dangerous. It must be remembered that when a ‘highly genteel
and polite society’ came flocking to Mr. Martin’s rooms, the only
approaches were through Biddle’s and West gates. Mr. Martin, more-
over, helped to attract and retain the visitors; thus the Corporation
did not hesitate when it became a question whether Mr. Martin or
the towers should go.

The first of these destroyed towers was probably ‘ Pilgrim’s Pit’
Tower, close to Biddle’s gate, deriving its name, as did the gate itself
sometimes, and a garden there, and the immediate vicinity, from what
was called the ‘ Pilgrim’s Pit ’—probably some famous well, which I
cannot help connecting with the pilgrimages to St. Thomas of Canter-
bury. In 1348, Agnes le Horder bequeaths a tenement in the parish
of St. Michael, in the street called ‘Pilegrimes putte” The name
‘Pylgrymes put’ occurs in an inquisition taken at Southampton in
1367. In 1441 we read of the ‘west gate next the castle called pyl-
erymys pyt.” In 1468 we hear of the ‘towr at pylgryms pyt,’ which
carried ‘j gonne w' 11) chawmbres,’?

The second tower may be placed in front of the fourth arch of the
arcade, where we observe broken work aloft and two rectangular piers,
each four feet wide, which do not bond with the arcade work, but run
up to the top of the wall with straight joints, the width of the arch
between them being 6 feet 4 inches,

For the site of the third tower we must pass on to the broad pier,
with a modern house-door in it, next beyond the ninth arch. Now,
this very broad pier, with the adjoining flat arch of 18 feet and the
pier beyond, has been partially rebuilt. But looking attentively at
it, we find that it is really made up of two rectangular piers, each
four feet wide, with a flat arch of 6 feet 4 inches between. The
identity of measurement will be noticed with that of the arch above
mentioned. Such was the arrangement in Englefield’s time; but to
accommodate a house in the rear the wall has been brought forward from

 

1 Speed’s map (1596) gives three towers between Biddle’s and Blue Anchor
gate: Dr. Speed’s plan gives two, one half drum, the other square: Milne’s
Survey (1791) shows two half drums.

2 Steward’s books, sub annis,
THE ARCADE. 87

 

between the piers flush with their outer face, thus reducing the whole
in effect to one breadth of wall space of over 14 feet, and com-
pletely altering the original features, though high above the modern
doorway unmistakable signs of broken vaulting are left. The piers
also are unconformable with the arcade. Of this now filled-up arch,
with that of 18 feet adjoining and the pier beyond, Englefield says:
‘These two arches and their three piers, together with another similar
narrow arch and its thick piers [the one above described], seem as if
they had belonged to a building which projected beyond the present
front of the wall; for the face of the small arch is rough, as if broken
off”? At the beginning of this century, moreover, there appear to have
been no signs of crenellation over these rectangular works, as if they
were unfinished at the top, while there was an embrasure over every
pier of the arcade. It is impossible to say what may have been the
character of the building in front of the two last-mentioned arches ;
but we may with great probability place here our third tower.

The fact that the arcade was originally fitted to or furnished with
towers has not, I believe, been noticed; and it is singular that Sir H.
Englefield should not have mentioned this destruction, which had only
occurred some twenty-five years before he wrote.

We may now turn to the arcade. It runs south from Biddle’s gate,
as we have stated, for about 260 feet, and is composed of the walls,
four feet thick and thirty high, of Norman buildings of domestic and
mercantile character, together with a fronting or masque of piers and
arches of a more or less pointed character, applied against the former
for additional strength. The work at the rear of the arcade is pure
Norman, belonging apparently to the middle or early part of the
twelfth century. Numerous door and window spaces may still be
traced in this older work, several of which have been cut across or
partially blocked by the arcading.

The arches of the arcade are nineteen in number, or rather now
we must say eighteen, since No. £0 has been filled in, as before
explained. They are of various span, but the average is a trifle under
eleven feet. The piers on which they are turned have a footing of
eighteen inches above the ground, with a total height to the spring of
the arches of about twelve feet, a breadth of 2 feet 2 inches, and a
depth of 3 feet 3 inches from the more ancient wall. To this
wall the piers are joined through their entire height, but between
the arches which spring from them and the wall behind a wide chase
is left, something like the groove for a portcullis, only having an
average breadth of 1 foot 8 inches. The front work or masque
raised upon these arches is bonded at unequal distances to the wall
behind, at the parapet level, with long stones, which from below give

The
Arcade.
Details of
Arcade,

88 THE ARCADE,

 

the effect, as they served the purpose, of machicolations completely
screened from view. An ample rampart walk was thus afforded with
a strong breastwork in front, cleft by a somewhat narrow embrasure
over every pier.

Commencing at Biddle’s gate, the first of the series of arches
differs from the others in being sharply pointed. Within this first bay,
which is only 5 feet 3 inches in width, and extending into the second,
Englefield describes a low semicircular arch, now hidden behind the
modern plinth. The second and third bays are each eleven feet broad ;
the second containing a semicircular archway, which was filled up
when this defence was made, and was pierced with a loophole still to
be seen on the inner side of the wall; similar loops being also observ-
able at breast-height in other parts of this defence. The third arch-
way, blank in Englefield’s time, now contains a modern doorway lead-
ing into a court beyond. There may also have been an opening above.
We now come to one of the rectangular-looking works before men-
tioned, against which the arcading rests on both sides, and which is,
therefore, probably more ancient than the arcade. It consists of two
piers, each four feet broad, with a flat arch of 6 feet 4 inches
between. Within this archway to the left was a low Norman door-
way. Arch No. 5 is g feet 3 inches in breadth: in the wall behind
it there may be seen the trace of a smal] loop. The sixth, seventh,
eighth, and ninth arches are each eleven feet broad. No. 6 has a
semicircular arch in the wall behind it to the left; No. 7, a segment-
headed door and a Decorated niche; No. 8, two ancient pointed door-
ways, that to the right half hidden by the next pier; that to the left
probably opened in lieu of it, and now again in use as the entrance to
a house in the rear; No. 9, a blank wall, but now pierced by a car-
penter’s Gothic window belonging to the house behind. This brings
us to the other rectangular work, presenting a breadth of pier or wall
surface of over fourteen feet, as already described, and showing the
remains of broken vaulting high above the modern street door. Next
is the rebuilt flat arch of eighteen feet, and the pier of six feet beyond,
also rebuilt, forming the remainder of the same rectangular work.
The wall behind the broad arch is blank and bears traces of plaster
on its surface. The arcade work commences again with the eleventh
arch, that and the three next arches being each eleven feet wide. It
contains behind it, according to Sir H. Englefield, a rough pointed
arch, which may be concealed behind the plinth. Within No. 12 is
the wide opening into Blue Anchor Court, over which, just within, is
the date of this insertion, 1644, in the mayoralty of Thomas Mason.
No. 13 may have had a couple of openings above; No. 14 contains one
small loop. The fifteenth arch, 11 feet g inches wide, has within it
THE ARCADE. 89

 

the ancient postern, now called Blue Anchor, but formerly Lord’s Lane Biue
gate, and still more anciently Postern gate. This gate has been much $cc
cut away to obtain width, but the grooves of its portcullis remain in
the head of the arch. No. 16 has within it on the ground-floor a large
semicircular arch, the old entrance from the twelfth-century house
behind to the quay or beach. In the second stage a plain double light
Norman window existed in Englefield’s time, but has since been im-
proved into a common wooden loft door. This archway is 11 feet
4 inches wide. Nos. 17 and 18 are each twelve feet wide. The wall
behind No. 17 contains on the right one half of a lofty segment-headed
opening cut off by the right pier, and on the left a segmental insertion
of smaller proportions, possibly substituted for the other when the
arcade was built. Above this latter opening is a good two-light Nor-
man window with a loop to the right. No. 18, the last now in the
arcade, has within it the wide modern opening of rough doors leading
into the remains of the above twelfth-century house called King John’s
Palace. Over this till late years there existed another two-light Nor-
man window, similar to the last, though partly cut off by the arcade;
but all traces of this are now gone, and the wall is much patched
about with brickwork. The arcading was continued farther south,
but there are no means of judging how far.

In estimating the probable date of this construction, attention must Date of
be given to the character of the arcade, the style of the work displaced ee
by it, and any documentary evidence which may bear on the matter.
It is submitted that no trace exists in the arcade itself of Norman or
even transitional character, and that there is nothing to negative its
being of Edwardian origin. But special regard must be had to the
character of the work against which it is built. Thus, turning to the
foregoing description, we observe the piers of the arcade blocking up
and cutting across, not only Norman windows of the date of King
Stephen, but also a pointed archway (No. 8) and a segment (No. 17).
These and probably more instances point to a much later age.
General documentary evidence from murages and quayages indicates a
great activity along this quarter in the Edwardian period; more money
was spent on the walls at that time than before or after. Whether or
not in connection with the arcade, but certainly with the quay-work
about this part, the burgesses had about 1326 constructed a wooden
barbican towards the sea, which they subsequently constructed of stone,
obtaining a ‘ barbican duty’ for some years in consequence (see under
Quays). Upon the whole, we venture to ascribe this partial conversion
of Norman mercantile buildings for purposes of defence, the looping
the wall, and the erection of the arcade, to the period marked out
above—the earlier part of the fourteenth century.
Buildings
in the rear,

Norman
houses.

go NORMAN HOUSES.

 

Of the buildings in the rear, whose front openings we have de-
scribed, some of the houses (e.g., that in arch No. 1) would seem to
have had vaults below; in other cases the openings indicate floors on
a different level. Immediately joining Biddle’s gate there was an
ancient building, into the remains of which the present Castle-
house has been built. The first openings of the arcade were probably
connected with this building. But there are two houses, separated by
the postern gate, well known to students of ancient domestic architec-
ture, which should be described here.

The more important of these houses is that to the south, occupying
the space immediately behind the last three bays of the arcade. Its
internal measurements are on the south side 44 feet, on the east
41 feet, on the west along the town wall 35 feet, and on the north
along Blue Anchor Lane 43 feet. The principal part of it is now
a mere shell, the roof and ancient woodwork not having been re-
placed, but a portion of the second floor immediately to the rear of
the west wall has been kept up. The house was in two stages through-
out, the chief rooms being on the second floor. In the north wall of
this storey are the remains of a handsome Norman fireplace? in a fairly
preserved state, with a perfect shaft in each jamb, and a chimney carried
to the top of the building. On this floor were the only windows of
the house, five in number, one being a mere loop and four of two lights
each, all of which looked to the front or town-wall side, except one
double window on the north, which faced the lane and the Norman
house opposite. The double windows were divided into their two lights
by a shaft with cap and base, except in the case of one (in arch-
way 16), now gone, which seems to have been formed simply by the
grouping of two small apertures. On the inside the windows are con-
tained within round-headed recesses, having a bold round bead on their
inner edge. On the same floor are the remains of an intramural
passage which started from the middle of the east side and was carried
to the south wall, where light was admitted by a small aperture, and
then westward within the south side. It communicated with the town
wall. Part of this fell away in 1866. On the ground-floor are two
Norman doorways, one above mentioned under arch 16. Against the
south wall and not bonded into it are two low piers, projecting some
five feet, upon which arches have been turned, probably for cellar or
stable accommodation. There are no traces of a staircase, which was
probably therefore of wood and within the building. We have already

 

1 Mr. J. K. Dymond, who has lately paid some attention to this building,
has observed four courses of Roman bricks in the fireplace, not in the position of
firebricks, but higher up, and, as he conjectures, for the sake of ornament and
variety of colour.
NORMAN HOUSES. gI

 

described the west exterior when speaking of the last three bays of the
arcade. The north exterior in Blue Anchor Lane contains on the
basement a Norman doorway, and farther on a later insertion. On
the second stage are the chimney shaft, projecting from the wall like a
flat Norman buttress and carried on a table of four corbels; and to the
tight of this, a two-lighted window divided by a shaft with cap and
base, the weather having been excluded by wooden shutters.

The house on the north of the Jane was smaller, and owing to its
having been constantly inhabited, and for some generations as an inn
or lodging-house, it has preserved fewer original features. Its external
measurements are, from west to east 45 feet, with a total depth from
north to south of about 20 feet. It preserves in front the original
Norman doorway, and in the rear some ancient work may be detected
from Blue Anchor Court.

The tradition which makes these houses, or the larger of them, to
be King John’s Palace is of recent origin,! and may be traced to Mr.
Duthy, whose interesting posthumous work appeared in 1839; other
local names have been given from the conjectures of Sir Henry Engle-
field. There is no doubt, however, that John was frequently at South-
ampton, and that he had here a ‘ king’s house’ or ‘ houses’ separate
from the castle platform, though not necessarily for his own dwelling
purposes. ‘King’s houses’ also existed in Winchester, Portsmouth,
and many other places.

Under 1189 and 1201, and other years, we have notices of the ‘ king’s
houses’ in the ‘ tower’ or ‘castle’ of Hampton; and the hall spoken
of before, for the repair of which rafters from Knutswood were supplied
(9 John), may have been in the castle, also the king’s gaol (7 H. III.);
so also the king’s court, for which a door was to be made without delay
(8 H. III.) Walter de Karron was keeper of the ‘ king’s houses’ at two-
pence a day in 1224, and Richard the Poor, Bishop of Sarum, the keeper
also of Winchester and Porchester castles, in 1225. But the following
entries relate either to houses which must have been distinct from any
buildings on the lofty castle platform, or to a quay with which they
were connected. In 1214 (16 John) the bailiffs of Southampton were
directed to repair ‘the quay of the castle;? and in the following year
‘our chamber, and our cellar of our castle, and likewise the quay of the
same castle’ In 1218 (2 H. III.) the sheriff (county) is ordered to
repair ‘ the cellar of our castle for the storing of our prisage wines, and
likewise the quay of the same castle.” In August 1221 (5 H. IIL),
and in the vear following, the king directed the bailiffs of Southampton

 

1 But the tradition of King John’s pond is much older. The pond, destroyed
a few years ago, is mentioned by that name in the Court Leet Book of 1670,

Where and
what were
the king's
houses ?
West gate.

92 THE WALLS.

 

to repair ‘our quay before our houses,’ and, in November 1222, to
repair without delay ‘ our quay during the winter, lest owing to that
quay any damage occur to our houses at Southampton;’ and at a fitter
season they were to carry out the work more perfectly. In 1225, too,
writs direct the bailiffs to cause repairs ‘ upon our houses at Southamp-
ton, and on our quay there;’ and to repair the quay, ‘that no loss
occur to us on account of our houses through neglect of such repairs’?

The house or houses here spoken of were certainly not much above
high-water mark, and stood by or upon a quay connected apparently
with the castle. Why should not the king’s storehouses have been
partly identical with the old castle vault and the chambers adjoining,
the quay being a Janding-place attached to the castle immediately
below those chambers? The ‘ king’s houses’ may have been little more
than offices connected with the storage department and the reception
of royal dues in kind, over which it was necdful to place a highly
responsible official to look to the king’s ‘rights. Such places may have
been specially required for purposes of business connected with an ever-
moving court; and some of them may have actually been erected on the
quay, and of less substantial character than castle walls. Certainly
there appears no reason why the monarch should have resided in Blue
Anchor Lane, or elsewhere, when he had at his command the ample
space of the Norman fortress.?

We have already described the walls as far as West gate. This is a
plain rectangular work, flush with the wall in front and without but-
tresses, 23 feet broad and 30 deep. It is in three stages, the lowest of
which is pierced by a roadway to fect wide, covered by a low pointed
vaulting, and formerly kept by a heavy doorway set back towards the
middle of the vaulting, having a couple of portcullises to defend it on
the side away froin the town; while immediately on the inside there is
a wide chase, 18 inches broad, which suggests some arrangement for
preventing the door being forced. The flanks and headway of this
central doorcase have as usual been much cut and pared for the sake
of width, and its original features can hardly be detected. In the
vaulting between the two portcullis grooves may be observed nine aper-
tures, three along the crown line, and three in the haunch on each side,
for the purpose of worrying a foe from above: they are about six inches
square at the mouth, but diminish upwards. The gate defences were
worked from the second stage, above which is a third, surmounted by

 

1 See printed Close Rolls, under dates,

2 So late as Queen Elizabeth, royalty dates missives ‘from our tower of
Southampton.’ See last chapter below.

3 The tower over West gate was constantly called, and let as, the Pigeon
House. In 1642 the rent was 13s. 4d. (Steward’s books).
THE WALLS. 93

 

a crenellation of two embrasures, front and back, and of three on each
side, the whole being capped by a plain roof. On the town side a stair-
way, immediately to the left and adjoining the tower, leads to the
rampart walk on the walls.

This gateway has stood fairly well through many vicissitudes. An
early notice of paving occurs in connection with it in 1441.! ‘ Payd pe
x daye of Marche to Emond Pavyer .. . for pawynge of pe West hethe
3ate, vilj. Item, payd pex daye of Marche for xviij lodys of stonys
fro pe Watyr3ate to pe West hethe 3ate to pe seyd pavynge, 1°. viij*?
One of the last notices of this gate occurs in the Journal for February
15, 1744-45, when its portcullis was ordered to be removed as a ‘ nui-
sanse, and of no manner of use.’

From West gate the curtain stretches for about 230 feet, with a
south-west inclination slightly convex, having a broad rectangular
bastion of no great depth on its front, as far as the early eighteenth-
century house of Madame Maés, beyond which there appears a lofty
arch something similar to those of the arcade, connected with a tower
of which some vestiges remain. Immediately in the rear of this wall,
starting almost from West gate, is a curious fifteenth-century timber
house on a stone basement, built against the town wall, but preserving
the rampart walk throughout its length, along which defenders might pass
without interfering with the house or houses, the ‘ walk’ being entered
from the side of West gate, as mentioned above. A similar arrange-
ment was observed in other parts of the town. The length of this
building, originally divided into two principal chambers, is about sixty
feet; its width, exclusive of the rampart walk, about twenty feet ; the
roof is extremely good.

To the south of the tower and behind the wall is a plot of ground
formerly called the ‘ Spanish burial-ground.’

The tower just spoken of was probably that called ‘ Bugle Tower ’— Bugle
‘the tower beneath Bull Hall Garden’ *—Bull or Bugle Hall being just ee
above it on the east. The ancient shore or quay seems to have come
as far south as the tower, and there to have stopped.

From this point the wall still exists in ruins, or is to be traced, run-
ning south-east by east for 300 feet, as far as the remains of a square
tower—probably that called Square or Corner Tower in the books?— Square or
at the entrance to Cuckoo Lane, adjoining the modern Bugle Hall. as

On the face of the wall, a little short of ‘Square Tower,’ are to be
seen the arms of the town under a Tudor moulding, together with
several huge gunstones worked into the wall, in memory, as some have

 

1 Steward’s books, * Court Leet Books, 1571, and Muster Books,
3 Ibid., 1625, and ditto.
St. Barbara
and Wool-
bridge
Towers.

Porter's
Lane,

94 THE WALLS.

 

supposed, of the direful French invasion of a previous century, when
the town was burned. The foe are believed to have landed in this
quarter, which was formerly called the ‘Gravel.’ The arms may per-
haps mark the rebuilding of this portion of the defences in the six-
teenth century.

From Square Tower the wall passed the ends of Bugle Street and
French Street, and joined the Water-gate, which crossed the High or
English Street. This portion of the wall was removed in consequence
of quay extension improvements by the Harbour Commissioners under
the Act of 1803, but a portion of it appears again in front of Castle
Hotel, near where it joined the Water-gate. In its convex sweep of
about 600 feet from Corner Tower there were two towers—St. Barbara’s
and Woolbridge—the latter ‘ the round tower at the corner of Wool-
house ;’! which building, judging from the direction of the watch
patrols of the sixteenth centurv, in which it is mentioned, must have
heen in this locality, and may have been the ancient store at the south-
east corner of French Street, near the present mouth of Porter’s Lane,
which, at one time called Le Cheyne,? was afterwards called sometimes
Wool Street, and may have had more than one building in it devoted
to the trade (see next paragraph).

This Jane formerly ran behind the wall at the ends of Bugle Street
and French Street, having been much more extensive than at present,
and forming the connection between the streets at the south end of the
town, Commencing at its ancient mouth isa fine old building at the
south-east corner of Bugle Street, a memorial of the town’s mercantile
grandeur in the Middle Ages, presenting the appearance of an ancient
hall of remarkably solid construction: it has a Spanish chestnut roof,
and curious cylindrical buttresses along the street. Its length is about
80 feet, breadth go feet. This building was certainly called the ‘wey-hous’
and ‘wolhous’ in the middle of the fourteenth century.2 It is now
usually known, from its more recent occupation, as the ‘ Spanish prison.’

Immediately on the north of this building was an ancient lane.
Adjoining it on the east, and all along the southern quay, are traces of
handsome stores of considerable importance. At the south-east angle
of French Street is the ancient store which may have been called the
‘Wool House’ in the sixteenth century—it was certainly close to this
spot; or ‘Canute’s Palace,’ which adjoined this store, may have been
the ‘Wool House.’

 

1 Court Leet Books, 1625; Lib, Rem. H. f, 14, 17; Muster Books, &c.

® Part of this was probably the holding of John Slegh—a void piece of ground
called La Chayne, worth 3s. 4d.—granted him for good conduct in 1382 (Pat. 5
R. II. p. 1, m, 12).

8 Deeds of R, Mascall, 1365, R. Bechefounte, 1388 (Westhall docs,), &c,
THE WALLS. 95

 

“Canute’s Palace,’ so known since the publication of Sir H., ‘Canute’s

Englefield’s ‘Walk,’ is an interesting relic of a late twelfth century ee
house which has been gradually destroved, and will, it must be feared,
be swept away under modern improvements. Sir Henry Engle-
field has accurately described this building as it existed in his
time! Its front extended 111 feet, being probably the whole of the
original frontage: the height to the top of the wall was seventeen
feet, the ground may have risen some two feet. The building is in two
storeys, a string-course ten feet from the ground runs below the upper
windows, Formerly there were two ancient archways in the basement ;
above, in the middle, were the two large Norman windows, something
of which still remain, and which appear to have formed part of a
composition of three; on the right of these windows were remains of
two other Norman two-light windows, more or less perfect; on the
left hand were two others symmetrically placed, and beyond these a
single-light opening. The thickness of the front wall is 2 feet 9
inches; the back wall appears to have run about 16 feet 8 inches
in the rear, so that the whole interior, having no traces of partition
walls in stone, represented two long galleries, one upon the other, of
about 105 by 16 feet 8 inches. The wide central windows are dropped
two feet below the string-course, and probably came down to the floor.
Sir Henry Englefield erroneously conjectured that this interesting
building might have been Canute’s Palace, and from his time the
tradition obtained that it was such, It may have been a building for
commercial no less than residential purposes, possibly forming part of a
larger plan; and the wide and low windows, before which there could
have been originally no town wall, may have been designed on a plan
of convenience for taking in stores.

Before 1833 about thirty feet of the front from the west angle had
been destroyed to make way for a mean house; since then further
dilapidations have occurred.

The Water-gate crossed the High Street a few feet to the rear of Water-
the ancient machicolations still to be observed on the front of Castle * ~~
Hotel and slightly to the north of the present entrance to Winkle
Street. Thus that street would have been left without the gate had
not the wall struck boldly out to sea south-east by south from the east
side of the gate to a lofty round tower—Watch Tower—on the sea- watch
line at the distance of about 110 feet, now marked by the bow window 1°”
of the Sun Hotel, which stands on its basement. On its west side the
gate was recessed and protected by the rounded curtain or flanking
tower, while on the east its approaches were completely covered, as

 

1 Archeologia, xiv. 84-89.
Winkle
Street.

Custom-
house.

Water-
gate
Postern,

Water-
gate,

96 THE WALLS.

 

was also a considerable part of the quay, by this salient wall of 110
feet. The original entrance to Winkle Street from the High Street
was by a narrow passage, the mouth of which opened a little due east
of the gate; thus the street or alley very much followed the bend of the
wall;1 and in old times its mouth in the High Street was crossed by
the archway of the ancient custom-house, or of a house adjoining.
We know from the Steward’s book of 1468 and other sources that the
“kynges custum hows dore’ was ‘by pe Water gate,’ and ‘j gret gonne
upon wheles’ stood before it.

The above arrangement of walls and gate was at length found in-
convenient. The Water-gate blocked the bottom of the High Street,
and there was no communication whatever with the quay except through
that gate. The sea washed the town walls on each side of the quay;
and the only way from the platform, that is, from the land side on the
east, was through Godhouse gate and Winkle Street, with its bend
northward, In 1789 a postern was ordered to be made at Water-gate
to increase the accommodation ; and it may have been carried through
the rounded curtain or flanking tower on the west side. But this addi-
tional help was insufficient ; and shortly after a breach was made in
the wall on the other side, adjoining and immediately to the south of
the gate, a house which had been built against the wall being removed
for the purpose of connecting the quay more directly with Godshouse
gate and the platform beyond. This breach is represented by the present
entrance into Winkle Street, after the opening of which the disposition
of the houses on the north became slightly altered, and the former
narrow mouth of the street built over. The loss of the abutment of
the above wall and house (in August 1800) shook the gate ; some of its
machicolations fell, and the structure remained an object of desolation
till it was removed in 1804, with some ancient buildings attached to it.
Among these were part of the curtain on the west, and the ancient
custom-house on the east flanking of the gate.

Water-gate was a wide and deep structure, with a low pointed arch
and the usual defences to its opening. Above was a boldly projecting
parapet with seven machicolations: all the windows in the second
stage faced the High Street.

This gate, like the Bar, was formerly adorned with lions and the
royal arms. Thus, in May 1501, ‘Hew Carpenter’ was paid for uy
peces of tymber for the lyons at the Water-gate, v.’: other payments
occur about these lions. Also ‘payd to John Stayner and his

 

1 Winkle, sometimes from Vinkel, a corner (suggestion of Mr, Ferguson in
‘Northmen in Cumberland’), see Notes and Queries, 6th series, vol. v. p. 476,
In the present case, probably a more commonplace derivation may serve.
THE WALLS. 97

 

felow for makyng of the armys at the Water-gate, xij uy??? Under
April 1609 we find this entry: ‘Ordered that the king’s majesty’s
armes shalbe sett upp in a frame uppon the Water-gate in the outer
side thereof towards the sea betwene the two lyons.’? There were a
couple of large brackets supported on corbels, one over each haunch of
the arch, for what purpose does not appear. A print of 1784 shows a
modern pediment, crowned and flanked with pinnacles rising out of
the roof of the gate just behind the corbel table ; it seems to have been
furnished with a sun-dial.

This gate probably was not erected much before the reign of Richard
II. It is mentioned in a patent? of the first year of that king; but it
was still called the ‘ New gate ’—novam portam vocatam Water-gate—
in a patent of the twentieth year. It seems indeed to have been left
incomplete, since the roofing-in of the tower over Water-gate—or
“ Flood-gate,’ as it was also called—formed part of the stipulation in a
lease of that tower, with one contiguous on the west, granted by the
mayor and community to William Ravenston, burgess, for the term of
twenty years from Michaelmas 1403. He was to render all services
due to the capital lords of the fee, and render to the mayor one red rose
each St. John Baptist’s Day.®

Oddly enough we find the whole work in a weak and ruinous con-
dition a few years later; and William Soper, a wealthy and patriotic
burgess, possibly the builder of the ships ‘Holy Ghost’ and ‘ Grace
Dieu’ in 1414, or his immediate descendant, having put the towers in
repair at his own heavy cost, received a lease of the premises from
September 1439 for the term of a hundred and twenty years, at the
annual tribute, as before, of one red rose on the Nativity of St. John
Baptist. The premises are thus described. The lessee was to hold,
from the Watch-bell station ® to the east of the gate, the Gate Tower
itself with its western flanking, and a void plot of ground beyond as
far as the first stone-way leading up to the ramparts on the west. This
was in a line with the south side of the present Porter’s Lane. In

 

1 Steward’s Book, 1501. 2 Journal.

3 A void place by ‘le Water-gate’ had been granted to John Slegh in 1377
(Pat. 1 R. II. pt. 6. m, 16).

4 Quit-claim from W. Brugis and Gilbert Harry, chaplains, to Walter Nicoll
and Elena his wife of a cellar and bakehouse ‘in venella jacente inter novam
portam vocatam Water-gate et portam lanarum ;’ the premises were thus in
Porter’s Lane. Date Oct. 21 (1396), 20 R. II. (among Corporation documents),

5 Lease dated August 1403 (4 H. IV.)

6 A quodam gradu et loco ubi jam pendet le Watchebelle ex parte orientali,
&c. There was a watch-tower on the town walls over God’s House Conduit in
this position—just to the east of Watergate—in 1615, 1618, 1670, &c, (See
Court Leet Books. )

G
Winkle

Street.

98 THE WALLS.

 

addition to this, on the east side of the gate, he obtained an equally
important grant of the void plot of ground or street between Water-gate
on the west and the house of a certain John Bacon on the east. He
had permission to build over this space afresh, provided he left between
the said John Bacon’s house and his newly to be erected edifice a
certain highroad (via regalis), 13 feet broad, with a headway of at
least 16 feet below the solars or upper chambers, which he might con-
struct over it. This was, no doubt, the original mouth into Winkle
Street. The above dimensions were specified to ensure proper room
for the passing of carts and men-at-arms and their serving-men with
lances and arms. The premises thus demised extended southward
towards the town wall, and the lessee was to be furnished with the
key of a wicket made in the great gate, outside of which he probably
possessed some sheds. William Soper covenanted for himself and his
successors to repair and maintain the towers and all buildings erected
or to be erected on the premises, and in time of war to defend the same
with their own arms and at their proper costs. The Corporation had
the right of re-entry if the buildings fell out of repair, and so remained
for a whole year! It does not appear when Soper’s tenancy actually
ended, but John Ingoldsby, the recorder, surrendered a lease of the
towers at Water-gate in May 1477 (17 Ed. IV.)? A somewhat similar
grant of the Water-gate Tower and ‘ mansion’ adjoining was made in
the mayoralty of John Walssh, in April 1496, to Richard Palshid,
who obtained licence to erect a solar or solars between the Gate Tower
and the Custom-house, leaving a space below for the lading and
unlading of carts, &c., so as to be no hindrance to the business of the
town? He had also a ‘skelyng’ or shed by the gate just outside the walls.
Palshid was to bear al] the burdens of war and defence, and enjoy his
premises for eighty-four years at an annual rent of twelve pence.t He
was holding the property in 1509,° the town-clerk at that period being
Richard Palshid, perhaps the same person. A hundred years later
(September 1609), the lease of the ‘ house over the Water-gate,’ which
he had held from Robert Knaplock, was renewed for forty years
to James Courtney in his own name; but no topographical marks
occur.

From Watch Tower below Water-gate, the wall, some vestiges of
which still remain, passed eastward with a southerly inclination for
about 250 feet, when it touched the south flanking of God’s House

 

1 Lease and counterpart (one of these is exhibited at the Hartley Institution),
For the will of W. Soper, see Lib, Niger, fol. 54.

2 Deed in Audit House.

3 Quoddam solarium sive queedam solaria in alto et non in basso edificanda,

+ Indenture in Lib, Niger, fol, 67. ° Steward's Books.
THE WALLS. 99

 

gate, thus forming the south-east corner of the town, the gate itself
standing east and west. This portion of the wall did not exist at the
end of the thirteenth century, as we have proof that the south side of
the quadrangle of God’s House was exposed to the sea.

In order to describe God’s House gate and the adjacent work at God's
right angles with it, we will take our stand on the platform or quay, acer
which gives one of the most striking views the town affords. The wor
gatehouse is a plain oblong structure in two stages, 23 feet deep and
30 feet broad, with its south end projecting as an obtuse angle beyond
the line of the south wall. <A lofty vaulted roadway, Io feet wide,
pierced through it, communicates with Winkle Street ; and no other
ancient opening occurs on the basement, which was used as a dungeon.
This roadway is divided longitudinally in the middle by the heavy arch
of a doorcase, now much cut away. Its front was defended by a port-
cullis, between the chase of which and the central doorway the vault
is supported by two massive cross ribs; while in the rear of the central
arch three ribs of slighter proportions carry the vaulting on rather a
higher level. The appearance of this gateway from below is decidedly
handsome. The second stage is lighted by three single windows, with
one in each face of the angular projection—probably enlargements
from loops—and one in the rear looking up Winkle Street. The
whole is capped by a plain roof with eaves.

The position of the gateway passage at the extreme right was partly
governed by the necessities of the town wall, which abutted on the
opposite side within. It must also be noticed that the gatehouse was
in existence before the erection of the handsome gallery and tower to
our right, which have in effect thrust the old entrance into a corner.
These latter buildings belong to the close of the fourteenth or begin-
ning of the fifteenth century, while the gatehouse may be placed a
hundred years earlier. The object of the addition was to secure a more
extensive flank defence for the gate and completely cover its approach,
which along the length of the new building was a shore-way of no
more than 30 feet wide. The tower also was constructed to protect
the sluices of the ditch, while a large additional accommodation was
afforded by the whole for troops and stores.

This handsome work projects at right angles with the gate about Details of
85 feet from its north flank. The building connecting the gate with oe
the tower is about 55 feet in length by 30 feet in depth, and is in two
floors, the lower of which had no apertures on this side, but the upper
is adorned by a loop or oillet next the gatehouse, and by three good
flat-headed two-light Perpendicular windows. A coped parapet sur-

 

1 See under ‘ God’s House.’
Mill-house,

100 THE WALLS.

 

mounts the front. The tower—called sometimes ‘ God’s House Tower,’
from its proximity to that house—is a finely proportioned structure
of three stages with bold corner buttresses, those at the open corners
being diagonal, divided into stages, and finally setting off at the parapet
line. The upper storeys are furnished with flat-headed two-light
windows, one in each open side; and the whole is crowned by a large
and strong battlement work, having only one embrasure, very widely
splayed on every side, designed for fire-artillery. A staircase turret on
a squinch between the wall and left-hand buttress leads out of the top
storey to the flat roof and parapet. Beneath the basement is an arched
space, through which the canal projected at the beginning of this
century was to have passed, the sluices of the original ditch having
been in the same position. The south front of the tower has been
sadly mutilated by the partial defacement of the original windows
and the insertion of various openings to accommodate its compara-
tively recent use as the town prison. Yet it is in a better condition
now than a few years ago. The sheds and buildings at its foot on the
south and east sides, in connection with its former occupation, having
been cleared away, it stands out in something of its pristine dignity.

The earliest mention of this tower which I have found is in the
account of military stores! in 1468, when, among other things, we find
in ‘Goddes hows towr j broken gonne. Item in pe sam towr ij holl
gonnes and j serpentyne. Item in pe sam towr x chawmbres for gonnes
and serpentynes. Also in pe sam towr a gret spruce cheste w* xix
chawmbres longyng to pe Orgons after specifyed. Item in pe sam
chest j baner steyned vp on lynyne cloth wt pe kynges armes and oder.
Item in pe same towre iij hold pollaxis. Item in pe sam towr . . . iij
qrtes of barell gonne powder. Item in pe sam towr gonne stones of
dyvers sorts.’

Close by the tower was the ‘ Mill-house,’? which I am unable to
identify, unless indeed the connecting building between the tower and
gate were so called, or it were in the angle of the town wall overlooking
the ditch to the rear of this spur-work, and protected by it. At all
events, it occurs in the account of the defences between God’s House
Tower and the tower next to it in the east wall. The Mill-house
was on the curtain, as apparently guns might be ranged from it:
“Item paid to labores that sette owte the gonnes of the Mille-house,
ij*.’? It was also a receptacle for military stores: ‘Item in the same
hows j gret brokyn chawmbre p*‘ servedd for a gonne callyd Thomas w'
pe Berd [beard], the wheche seyd gonne called Thomas w' pe Berd,
new bownd and pencylled, as in pis sam bok shew‘, wt ij holle chawm-

 

1 Steward’s Books, 1468. 2 Ibid., 1460.
THE WALLS. IOI

 

bres to pe sam, w' viij gonne stones and viij tampons to pe same were
delyuered by Master Andrew James, leftenaunt, pe xxx day of May
An’ viij R. E. iiij to my lord Scales by endenture, as y onderstond.
Item in the towr next Goddes hows towr in pe est party ij gonnes.
Item in Gebon Cornmongers towr ij gonnes w' chawmbres. Item in
Mechell Lukes towre ij gonnes wt vj chawmbres.’ These were the first
three towers up the east side,

In connection with the preceding may be placed the following:
‘Item rec* of Syr John Walker for ij howses, p' is the Longhouse
afore Goddyshowsse w'a skelyng and a gardyn w* the stabelys beside
the Mylle, paying yerly to the Toune and he to repayre hit . . vi’.
vij*’? The Longhouse with its stable and loft before God’s House is Lons-
frequently mentioned,? and is probably to be identified with the Per- —
pendicular building whose remains we see opposite God’s House, with
the town wall behind it.

Leland describes the tower or South Castle as a ‘castelet welle
ordinauncid to bete that quarter of the haven.? This was in 1546.
No subsequent notes of interest have been found about it.

The circumstances have been already related under which the old Town
tower became the town gaol] in 1775. It was but ill adapted for the ra
purpose, and the condition of the borough gaols became a subject of
frequent complaint within a few years. The establishment at the
South Castle embraced a gaol for felons and debtors and a Bridewell,
the gaoler in each case being one of the sergeants-at-mace, who by
ancient custom received the prisons to eke out their salaries.

The Bridewell was over the gate, and had been settled here since
1707. The keeper’s salary was £2 in addition to his payment of £15 as
sergeant-at-mace. There wasa surgeon, but nochaplain. Prisoners were
allowed the usual sixpence a day, and a bushell of coals weekly among
them all. The premises—subsequently they embraced Solent Cottage
and Platform House—consisted in 1810 of three rooms, a dayroom
about 15 feet square, and two bedrooms each 12 feet by g feet. There
was also a room in the keeper’s house for those who paid four shillings
per week. The borough allowed a crib bedstead, straw-in-ticking bed,
two blankets and rug for each. There was no courtyard, nor any
employment for the prisoners, nor a proper division between the sexes,

The debtors’ prison was in the tower. The gaoler received no
salary, but was paid by fees, these being: entrance, four shillings ;

 

1 Steward’s Books, 1486.

2 ¢,g., Steward’s Books, 1469, 1493. In 1474 the Longhouse was let in two
tenements under the arrangement of Ric. Gryme, the lieutenant : the part towards
the west at forty shillings, that towards the east at thirty shillings per annum,
Spur-work
and tower
turned into
stores,

102 THE WALLS.

 

discharge, two shillings of first action; ten shillings the second, and
every other action; and two shillings to the turnkey. A surgeon was
sent by the mayor when wanted. The allowance to paupers was
sixpence a day, and a bushell of coals per week served for the whole
prison. The wards consisted of two rooms, with glazed windows and
fireplaces, 16 feet by 12 feet each, to which the Corporation allowed a
bedstead with woollen mattress, two blankets and a rug. The room at
the top of the tower was furnished by the keeper, for which he charged
two shillings and sixpence per week. There was a small courtyard (46
feet by 36 feet) attached; it was well supplied with water, not paved,
and ducks and fowls were kept in it.

The felons’ gaol was within the gallery, between the tower and the
gatehouse. The gaoler, who at the beginning of this century was also a
tailor, received a salary of #420, in addition to £15 as sergeant, but he
had no fees. There was no chaplain, nor was divine service ever per-
formed ; there was, however, asurgeon. The allowances were sixpence
a day each, and one fire for all, a bushel of coals being apportioned
for the week. A narrow slip, 34 feet by 7 feet, immediately behind
the front wall, was the only courtyard ; it was furnished with a stone
sink and a pump, frequently without water, especially in summer.
There were four small rooms for prisoners, each about 11 feet square,
with iron grated and glazed windows and fireplaces. Each of these
had a bedstead with straw-ticking bed, two blankets, and a rug; but
there was no proper separation of men and women. The entrance to
the prison was through a small square door inserted in the wall,
and now again filled up, immediately to the left of the recent store
opening. Over the door was painted, ‘ Pray remember the poor
prisoners’ box.’}

With the increase of population the evils of the old gaol were
intensified. The Commissioners of 1835 reported its condition as very
bad; and at this time the population of the borough had risen to nearly
20,000. It was finally abandoned upon the erection of a new and
spacious gaol in 1854-55 ; but this has been closed under the operation
of the Prisons Act, 1877. Upon the removal of the gaol, the South
Castle remained vacant, until the gatehouse and gallery were again
brought into requisition, at the end of 1875 and in the year following,
for permanent storage accommodation. The business of the town was
so rapidly increasing that all available space was needed. In conse-
quence of which, the old buildings were cleared of every vestige of their
former occupation with the exception of the tower. When gutted, the
basement of the gallery was seen to have been covered with a groined

 

* Imperial ard County Register for 1810; Gentleman’s Magazine, October 1810.
THE WALLS. 103

 

vault ; at the west end a newel staircase, now removed, communicated
with the floor above, and with the chamber over the gateway by means
of a mural stairway branching from it, which latter portion still re-
mains. Out of this chamber another passage, through its north-east
angle, constructed in the thickness of the wall, and betraying some
sign of itself across the hollow angle outside, still admits into the long
gallery, lighted by its three perpendicular windows, over the formerly
vaulted basement. When clearing the buildings, occasion was taken
to restore carefully the south and east fronts, every external feature of
the original being preserved. Two doorways were, however, inserted,
one of large dimensions in the basement of the gallery, and a smaller
in the south-east face of the gateway flank. It is to be hoped that
when the time comes the handsome tower may be well treated: it
wants but to have its prison windows abolished and the old lights
fully opened out.

Before passing on, we may remark the statue in terra cotta of the Statue of
late Prince Consort, presented to the town by Sir Frederick Perkins in pu
1877. It does not appear to advantage in this position, while the
venerable tower and adjacent buildings owe nothing to its presence.

From the north-west corner of the spur-work just described the East wall.
wall is seen above the houses in front of it as far as a half-round
tower, 23 feet in diameter, at the distance of 160 feet, into which a
smal] house has been built. Farther on, at a distance of about go fect,
are the remains of a small rectangular tower, 22 feet broad; and at
another distance of about go feet is the root of a second rectangular
tower, 30 feet broad. These two last were conjectured by Sir H.
Englefield, probably erroneously, to have been added in the time of
Edward VI. ;1 Mr. Clarke considers them much older, and perhaps bear-
ing out this view we have an entry of the towers ‘ by the Friars’ being
let for two shillings in 1509: these rectangular towers being just behind
the Friary.2, Nothing remains of the other towers as far as East gate,
so that no means exist of comparing their relative age. But it may be
observed that while Leland (1546) says ‘ there be vj fair tourres in the
walle betwixt the Est gate and the South gate,’ the Muster Book of
1544 enumerates seven, and possibly omits one as too small for special
defence. Speed’s map (1596) gives eight, in which number both
Englefield and Dr. Speed® agree, six* being circular and two square.
The wall is traceable along much of this line. Leland says of East gate

 

1 Buller’s Englefield, p. 9. 2 Steward’s Books,

3 On his plan.

4 One of these, of which I have a drawing, crossed the pavement of the
modern Bridge Street on the south side, where Back-of-the-Walls runs into it.
Another tower ‘ behind the Star’ often occurs in the books.
Eastgate,

St. Denys's
or Poly-
mond
Tower.

Ica THE WALLS.

 

that it is ‘ stronge, but nothing so large as the Barre-gate.’ It was a
heavy structure, with flanking towers projecting boldly into the ditch.
Grose’s drawing, taken in 1772, seems to suggest that the front part of
the gate had been thrown out beyond its flankings, something after the
manner of the Bargate. Its front was defended by four rows of loops,
two in each row, one above the other: the mouth of its entrance being
kept by a portcullis, behind which was a heavy door. The east front
had prominent diagonal buttresses setting off at the corbel table,
on which, in place of battlements, were large embrasures for fire-
artillery, one in each of the three fronts. In 1670 the ancient bridge
before the gate was pulled down and rebuilt of one arch eight feet
wide, with stone taken from the castle. The mason found all other
materials and received £8. In 1775 leave was granted to the Com-
missioners of Pavement to take down Eastgate, on paying £16 to the
Corporation. There was a chapel over Eastgate dedicated to St. Mary.
Agnes le Horder? left a bequest to it in 1348. In 1641 we find the
chapel let to Alderman Exton, together with a tenement and garden
close by. It had apparently for many years been desecrated, and let
as a warehouse.?, Between Eastgate and the north-east corner of the
town there was one small tower, as we know from the Muster Books,
Leland, and Speed (1596) ; but it must have disappeared in Englefield’s
time, as he does not mention it. Its site is shown on the Ordnance
Survey as just south of the East Street Brewery; it may have been
the tower called ‘ Little Tower’ in the Journal of March 3, 1775.

At the north-east corner of the walls stand the remains of St. Denys’s
Tower, or Polymond’s, as it is styled in the Muster Book of 1544. It
was a drum, 28 feet in diameter, in three stages; and in November
1828 leave was granted to remove the two upper storeys, and in the
following month the whole. However, there are considerable remains
to this day. Leland speaks of it as very fair and strong; Englefield de-
scribes it as baving been a high round tower, which seemed to have been
built with embrasures for cannon. In 1468 it was furnished with
‘j gonne wt owght chawmbres.’ Afterwards heavy guns were provided
for this tower. In 1654 it had fallen into great decay; one great gun
on the top of the tower had a rotten carriage, ‘and the whole loft on
which the said gun standeth is rotten, and in great danger of a sudden
fall. Allso there is another great gun on the rampier by the said tower
nere buried in the ground, which we desire may be carried to the
tower ’—i.e., God’s House Tower. From the position of this last gun
we may perhaps gather that there was a work in front of St. Denys’s
Tower.

 

Addit. 15, 314, pp. 85, 86. 2 Steward’s Books, 1641-42.
THE WALLS. TOS

 

Turning westward towards Bargate, much of the wall remains be-
hind the houses ; there are also the remnants of two half-round towers,
which we have noticed before, the former of these, distant 160 feet from
St. Denys’s Tower, having a diameter of 16 feet ; the latter about 120
feet farther, with a diameter of 22 feet. Another distance of about
120 feet brings us again to the Bargate.

From the Muster Book of 1544 we learn certain other details of
the walls, together with the names, number, and position of the
towers.

From Catchcold to West-gate there were 79 loopholes in the wall ; to
each of these men were assigned, the town being then divided into eight
parts for the purpose of defence, a certain specified district (see under
‘Watch and Ward”) being assigned for the safeguard of each picce of
wall. From West gate to St. Barbara’s Tower were 59 loopholes; from
St. Barbara’s to God’s House Tower were 56 loops ; then on to the Friar’s
Garret or Tower, next beneath the Friars, 53 loops; then to the tower
behind Holy Rood Church, 52 loops; thence to the East gate, 49 loops;
from East gate to Bargate, including what were over East gate, there
were 53 loops; from Bargate to Catchcold, including 22 over the gate,
there were 64 loops. It is evident that, at all events, over the gates, if
not entirely so, the crenels or embrasures in the battlements are meant
in the above enumeration.

From an assignment for the defence of the towers made by the
mayor and his brethren at the same date we gather the following names
and curious particulars.

Arundel Tower and one little tower towards Bargate were assigned
to the shoemakers, curriers, cobblers, and saddlers. Bargate Tower with
one little tower towards Polymond’s was held by the town; the next
small tower and Polymonds were assigned to William Knight and John
Capleyn. The next little tower towards East gate, and the East gate
Tower itself, were intrusted to the goldsmiths, blacksmiths, lockiers,
pewterers, and tinkers. Next come seven towers enumerated from
East gate to God’s House Tower. The first five were known by the
names of the citizens opposite whose gardens they stood; the sixth was
over against the Friars; the seventh was next to God’s House Tower:
for the keeping of these no appointment had as yet been made. God’s
House Tower, the Watch Tower, and Water-gate Tower were kept by
the town. The tower by the Wool-house was given to the mercers
and grocers; that ‘callyd now St. Barbara’s Towre and the Corner
Towre next to Beaulieu Selde’ were assigned to the brewers and bakers.
The tower behind Bull Hall was given to the coopers; West gate to
Mr. Baker ; the tower behind Thomas Marsh’s house to the vintners,
mariners, and lightermen; that against Mr. Huttoft’s to the weavers,

1544.
Loops or
crenels
manned,

Towers
manned,
Decay of
walls and
towers.

Back of
the walls,

Walls
generally.

106 THE WALLS.

 

fullers, and cappers ; and the tower next ‘ Bedille’s gate’ to the butchers,
fishers, and chandlers.

Having completed our survey of the walls, 1 we may finish the story
of their decay. The keeping in repair a mile and an eighth, or more,
of walls and towers had been a burden for centuries, and, to do the
townfolk justice, they had never disguised their grief. They seem to
have taken revenge on the walls and towers as soon as the necessity for
such protection was relaxed. In 1550 Mr. Mylles, who may have been
the recorder, wanting to cart some chalk into his premises, calmly
opened a passage through the town wall, and stuffed the hole with clay
and stone, ‘which,’ say the leet jury, ‘we thincke ys not sufficient ;
whrefore we require yt to be made w' Jyme and stone as the rest of
the walle ys for the safegard of the same.’

It was of course essential in a fortified town to have a clear and
passable way at the rear of the walls. On the east or more remote side
of the town this seems to have been a frequent difficulty from one
cause or other. The gardens of the High Street (many of them) ran
down to the Back-of-the-Walls; and by custom the inhabitants on the
east side of the town were bound to keep that passage properly gravelled.
This they not seldom neglected. A complaint to this effect occurs in
1566. But a few years later we find this roadway choked with houses,
and in 1596 the court leet wake as from a dream, and make the
following extraordinary presentment :—

‘We present that all the small Towers behinde the east side of the towne
howses within the Towne walls are all converted into dwellinge howses of verie
poore people w“ is like to growe into great inconvenience as well for endama-
geringe the Towne by harbouringe of lewde persons therein as impayringe the
walles in that they have all of them made great wholes through the walles for
their lights, whereof we pray redresse.’ 2

In 1606 the mayor was desired to see to the repairs of the walls,
and to charge the expense in his accounts. In 1650 a certificate of
their decay was sealed and directed to the barons of the Exchequer.
During the spring and summer of 1667, under apprehension from the
Dutch, the fortifications of Southampton, with those of Portsmouth,
Calshot, and the Isle of Wight, were put in order under the eye of the
Lord Gerard. By April g the fortifications of the town and dock of
Southampton were going on at great pace, three companies of foot
being wholly engaged on the work. In 1676 the portcullises were still
in working order but beginning to be disregarded, as about that time

 

1 A further notice of the walls and towers will be found under ‘Watch and

Ward.’
2 Court Leet Books, ® Calendar State Papers under date.
THE WALLS. 107

 

raids seem to have been made on the sheers and ropes by which they
were worked: they were ordered however to be restored. After serious
complaints to the Government in 1683 and 1702 on the state of the
fortifications and their burden upon the inhabitants, with little relief
in answer, the Corporation directed that the walls should be repaired
“where there is a necessity in the most frugal manner,’ under the inspec-
tion of Mr. Mayor. But in 1764, the enlargement of Water-gate quay
being on hand, the crumbling parapets of the town walls were largely
utilised for this purpose ; and in the same year such of the gates (that
is, the doors of the gates) as were a nuisance were ordered to be re-
moved. Dr. Speed, writing about 1770, continues—with the omission
of a short paragraph—from where we left him off, “ the walls are still
standing all round the town, but are in a very ruinous condition ;
“ only those on the south and west sides, which lie next the sea, are
“kept in such repair as to prevent damage from the sea.” It was a
practical joke of the period to shut the town gates at unheard-of times,
and in 1786 an order was issued for securing the gates to prevent this
improper sporting of the town’s oak.

We have already mentioned some serious destructions in 1775,
about which period the Corporation seem to have made no special
favour of permitting the removal of portions of wall or towers. But
in 1791, in contemplation, we must suppose, of a more radical excision
of the old defences, they presented a memorial to the Treasury for
leave to take down some parts of the town walls which had become
ruinous, and to convert the material.1 Subsequently to this nearly the
whole of the south wall, together with the Water-gate, was removed
under the powers of 43 G. IIT. c. 21 (1803) by the commissioners there
appointed for the improvement of the harbour.

Leland (1546) describes the town ditch as being double on the The
whole of the north side, and on the east nearly as far as South or God’s Dish
House gate; it was well supplied with water through its course. The
tide was admitted on the south, but this was probably not the case on
the north, where the natural elevation of the ground was so much
greater, This portion of the ditch may have received drainage from
the town: thus in 1478 a hole was made in the wall above Bargate to
let the water into the ditch ‘by commandment of Master Grym beyng
Jeutenaunt.’ Speed’s map (1596) shows that the whole of the ditch to
the west of the Bar and as far as the first tower to the east had been
filled in. This half of the north ditch, being probably unconnected
with the tide, had a greater tendency to become choked, and the in-

 

1 Journal sub annis,
Orchard
Street,

Archery
Butts.

Moat

neglected,

Lease of
the town
ditches,

108 TIE WALLS.

 

habitants of above Bar were constantly throwing their refuse into it,
in spite of penalties of five shillings on this nuisance and the present-
ment (15479) that ‘allso yt wer very necessary that a torne pycke were
ther made to avoyd yt.’? Even on the east side of the Bar a portion
of the ditch had been filled up, kine being kept there, ‘which rubbeth
down the butts.’ All this part, on both sides of the bridge, we find
permanently filled in by Speed’s time (1596). This ground, as having
belonged to the ditch, was considered a part of the town waste. The
portion to the left of the Bar was for some time previous to 1777
known as the Rope Walk, but at that date its name became changed
into Orchard Street.?

To the right of the Bargate, and immediately adjoining the plot
filled up, which extended to the first tower, stood the archery butts on
the bank between the ditches, approached by a bridge from the north.?
They are mentioned in 1485, and constantly afterwards. The exis-
tence of these butts on the bank in the middle will help us, failing
direct evidence, as to the width of the ditch. Considering the room
which our ancestors must have required for their favourite and indeed
commanded pastime, we can hardly place the counterscarp of the moat
nearer than the south side of Hanover Buildings, that is, at about 100
or120feet. Notices of Bargate Bridge do not help us as to the breadth
of the ditch. The roadway of Hanover Buildings marks the ancient
toad which led round by the moat.

In reference to the east and north-east sides, the leet jury present,
in 1571 and 1573, that it were

‘Needefull that the sluse at Godes house weare opened wheareby the water
might have his course and recourse into the towne dyches from the sea, and out

of the said dyches into the sea againe, for by the meanes of the stoppinge thereof
the town dyches are drye and growen almost to pasture ground.’

There was water enough, however, for the ‘cucking stool’ for scolds
in 1579.°

It had been the practice from early times to let the town ditches.
In 1482-83, the rent of that between Bargate and East gate was two
shillings ; between that and God’s House, three shillings and fourpence.
The renting of the ditches went on, like the leasing out of the towers,®

 

1 Court Leet Books,

2 Journal, April 1777. There was a roper above Bar, if not on this spot, in
1698—99 (All Saints Reg.) In the latter part of last century a rope-walk existed
to the north of Hanover Buildings.

3 In 1618 Thomas Lee was presented for not making (z.é., perhaps re-
making) a bridge across the ditch to the town butts.

4 Steward’s Books. 5 Court Leet Books.

® Steward’s Books, 1482-83, 1485, 1493, &c.
THE WALLS. 109

 

only interrupted at critical periods. In 1625 they were leased, with all
their fishing, pasturage, banks, islands, &c., to Mr. Edward Exton for
forty years, at a fine of #5 and a yearly rent of six shillings and eight-
pence; but under October 1648 we find Mr. Exton excused his rent
in consequence of the ditches having been used for defence and of no
profit to him. In 1687 the ditches were leased to William Crop for a
fine of £24 and a yearly rent as above of six and eightpence.

Traces of the north ditch exist behind the houses on the south of
Hanover Buildings, but on the east side it is to be distinguished through
its whole course, the back of the walls marking the immediate rear of
the ancient fortifications, and the ditches or canal? walk the counter-
scarp of the old town moat.

The platform dates from the end of the thirteenth century, if we The
are right in considering a quay made by the Prior of God’s House near pane
his close to be identical with it;? but its enlareement may have occurred
soon after the introduction of fire-artillery. It was without God’s
House gate, opposite the bowling-green, but its ancient form and size
have now become obliterated under handsome modern extensions.
There was formerly a ‘bulwark ’ somewhat to the rear of the platform
and immediately at the foot of the bowling-green. In 1457, under the
terror of French invasion—it was seven years after the loss of Nor-
mandy, and the year in which Sandwich was burnt—there was some
activity along the shore-line between God’s House gate and Itchen outwork.
Cross, where in the last century, in the fashionable period of South-
ampton’s history, was a lovely and far-famed drive, with its row of elms
at the side. Some of the accounts of this year may relate to work on
the platform. Perhaps also to the same neighbourhood may be referred
an entry in 1469 of a fee to William Tempull, master of the king’s
ordnance, for observing ‘ the making of bulwarks”* By 1559 the ‘ bul-
warks’ over against God’s House had fallen into bad repair, and were
to be put in order by the Provost of God’s House. A little later (1577)
the sea-banks beneath the bulwarks demanded attention, as also the
‘bulwark’ and the weather-house by the ferry; this latter being Cross
House,® and the ‘ bulwark ’ just spoken of probably the defensive work
referred to by Dr. Speed as a ‘ wooden fort’ in his sentence on the
platform and ditch: “ a.p. 1647 the platform was built and repaired.
“* There is a broad ditch all round the town on the land side ; and on
“ the shore opposite to the mouth of the river Itchen was a wooden fort,

 

1 Lease.

, # So called from the unfinished canal brought through it in 1795,
3 See under ‘ God’s House,’
4 Steward’s Books. * Court Leet Books,
Cross
House,

TIO THE WALLS.

 

“ the piles of which remain still.” Under the above notice (Feb. 1647-48)
it was ordered that the platform without God’s House gate ‘be built
and repaired with stonework four feet thick, and a range of stones set
against the bulwark over against the bowling-green ;?} Thomas Mason
and Peter Clungeon, who had both filled the civic chair, being ap-
pointed to overlook the work. The platform was furnished with great
guns, which constantly seemed to want new carriages. Later on, in
1761 and 1769, the old guns were ordered to be sold and a peaceful
saluting battery formed. But some improvement was desired in 1835,
when the mayor applied to the Board of Ordnance for some ‘ cannons
to place on the platform to fire on joyful occasions,’ and received from
Portsmouth the six nine-pounders which are still in their places. Be-
sides these there is an ancient culverine, made by order of Henry VIIL.,
as its inscription states ; and there are some relics of the siege of Sebasto-
pol presented by the War Office in 1857.

The ‘Weather House,’ or Cross House, mentioned under 1577 in
connection with ‘the bulwark’ or wooden fort close by, bears within
it the town’s escutcheon and rebus with the initials of Peter Clungeon,
mayor, and the date 1634, that of its restoration under this mayoralty,
after its tottering condition had been presented for many years.? It
stands at the ancient landing-place, and being formed of two inter-
secting walls covered with a conical roof, was ‘ profitable,’ as the court
leet remark in 1596, ‘not only for those who wait for the boat, but
for a shelter against rain” A tradition, which is older than 1719,? assigns
its erection to the bequest of an old lady in the seventeenth century,
who caught her death of cold while waiting for the ferryboat; but
tradition has failed to put the lady far back enough. Cross House
most probably represents, or is the basement of, the old boundary cross
at Itchenworth—so the spit or landing-place on which it stands was
called; and if so, it possesses considerable antiquity. As a ‘weather
house’ it was old in 1577, and wanted serious repairs. It is frequently
mentioned in the town books. In 1813 there was a question of
removing it to some other spot, and it is supposed to have been in
danger since. In 1835 the town were said always to have repaired
it; since then, however, it has been put in order by private liberality,
at least on one occasion. We trust it will be suffered to remain; a
very fractional expenditure now and then will preserve this curious
little building for centuries.

 

1 Journal. 2 See Court Leet Books for 1615, 1633, &c.

3 The tradition is mentioned in Addit. 14, 296, a collection of notes on
Hampshire of that date.

4 ¢.¢,, Court Leet Books, 1667 ; Journal, 1695, &c.
THE QUAYS. IIil

 

At this spot, the ancient landing-place as well as a boundary point
of the borough, the ferrymen of the Itchen did homage to the mayor
and corporation at the stated perambulation of the town, engaging to
carry over the burgesses and their families free of charge, in return for
the permission to land passengers on the town side of the river.

In 1767 the ferrymen having refused free passage to a burgess, the
town clerk reported to the proprietors of the ferry—Thomas Dummer,
Esq., and James Mylles, Esq.—the conduct of their tenants, who, on
October 20, urged no doubt by the proprietors, appeared and made
their submission, acknowledging that their right of landing passengers
depended on their service of carrying the burgesses and their families
free of toll.

This state of things went on till the establishment of the new ferry."

SecTIon V.—TZhe Quays.

There was a ‘Castle Quay’ (see p. 74) in the early part of the
thirteenth century distinct from that of the western shore; but this
latter quay, whenever constructed, was the centre of life and trade in
medieval Southampton. A quayage in the usual form was made in
aid of repairs to this quay for one year in 17 Edward II. (1323); and
two years later a similar grant for seven years was obtained, the letters,
dated Lichfield, 18th March 1326 (19 Ed. II.), reciting that the
burgesses had begun to construct the quay and enclosures of the town
by royal mandate, but after serious outlay were not able to finish
without such relief? In the following year (18th March, 1 Ed. III.,
1327) they obtained from the new monarch what was really a confirma-
tion of the former quayage for six years.®

In connection with these works on the quay, the townsmen had
constructed a wooden barbican as a defence towards the water, and for
greater security against foreign invasion had commenced rebuilding it
in stone. On this plea they further obtained (10 Ed. III., 1336) a
grant of a penny in the pound on all merchandise for five years, and on
the expiration of that term (1341) secured a renewal for a similar
period.* In 1339, a controversy about the payment of this barbican
duty, which had arisen with the men of Winchester, was terminated
(February 26) by a release to them from this impost for five years.®

 

1 From the Journals. See further under ‘ Admiralty’ and ‘ Itchen Ferry
Bridge.’

2 Pat. 17 Ed. Il. p. 1, m. 9.3; 19 Ed. II. p. 2, m. 17.

3 Pat. 1 Ed. IID. p. 3, m. 5. * Pat. 15 Ed. III. p, 1, m. 39.

5 Indenture among Corp. Archives,

West Quay.

Barbican,
West and
Water-gate
Quays.

Water-gate
Quay.

112 THE QUAYS.

 

In 1502 the quay from Biddle’s gate for some distance was let to
John Dewtrey, ‘to occupy with mylstonys, canestone, sclattis, colys,
&e.’, other burgesses having right to use any part they might choose to
pay for! Leland calls this a ‘large key for shippes ;’ a few years later
(1569) it occurs in the books as ‘ galley key.’®

“This quay was lengthened in 1576.

“ ap. 1583, a decree? was sent down under the Exchequer seal,
“ sioned by several officers of the customs, certifying that West Quay
“and Water-gate Quay are the only quays to this port.

“Tn 32 Chas. II. (1680), the lawful quays of Southampton, a head
“ port, were thus by commission returned into the Exchequer :—

« South Quay or Water-gate has one pair of stone stairs at the south end, and
“ two other pair on the east side. It measures about 223 feet in length from the
‘© Water-gate and town wall to the head of the said quay; and in breadth, by
“ the said gate and wall, about 190 feet, and only about 63 feet at the head.

“West Quay measures about 225 feet in length from the West gate to the
‘‘ head of the quay, and in breadth, near the said gate and wall, about 58 feet,
“ but at the head of the said quay not more than 37 feet.” 4

In the middle of the last century, West Quay served for the
Channel Islands trade, which was very considerable, and the Guernsey
and Jersey vessels always anchored off it.

Judging from a patent of 12 Ed. IV. (1411), it would seem that
South or Water-gate Quay was thennew. The patent sets forth that
the burgesses, with the assistance of Thomas Mydlington, one of their
number, had constructed at great cost a certain bank called a ‘ wharf,’
with a crane upon it, at ‘la Watergate,’ in aid of the fortification and
merchandise of the place, and for receiving custom, and that they
had incurred the indignation of many who had been accustomed to
evade or purloin the dues: the king, therefore, desired the work might
be maintained henceforth, and authorised such toll from all parties
using the wharf or crane as was levied in London, or at other ports
where such accommodation (ripa et crana) existed.

In 1441 the town books mention this wharf and crane: in 1457
the quay was ‘ paved’ with gravel, and at the same time a ‘gret gone’
was laid upon it. Other notices occur in 1468 and 1470; at the
same time mention is made of an ‘East Key,’ which must mean the
same, unless, as is possible, the platform be intended.

 

1 Lib. Rememb., H. sub anno. 2 Court Leet Book. 3 Journal,

* Guide to Merchants, or Modern Practice of Court of Exchequer, 1730,
p. 105.

6 Pat, 12 H. IV. m. 18 (March 26). 6 Steward’s Books,
THE QUAYS. 113

 

“Tn 1525 the new quay at Water-gate was piled, and the next year
“it was paved and gravelled.” Leland describes it as a ‘ faire square key
forcid withe Piles into the Haven water for shipps to resort to.’
Speed (1596) speaks of both quays as being “stately.” “In 1613 this
“ quay was lengthened sixty feet,” and the town being at this expense,
petitioned the king, without sucess, for five hundred trees from the New
Forest for their walls and quays. In 1724 Mr. John Grove proposed
to enlarge the quay by adding two circular piers according to a plan
produced by him. The Corporation gave their approval, recommend-
ing him to raise subscriptions, and promising £200 on the completion
of the works. The encouragement seemed insufficient, and nothing
resulted.) However in due course an enlargement came. “In 1765
“* South quay or Water-gate was again lengthened forty yards ”»—to gain
six feet in depth— towards the expense of which the two members of
“ Parliament for the town, Hans Stanley, Esq., and Henry Dawkins,
* Esq., contributed #558 each; and this is the present state of that
** quay which is the principal one. The Corporation paid £450 out of
“ their common stock.”

The great improvement of this quay dates from the commence-
ment of the present century under the Pier and Harbour Commission,
called into being and empowered by the 43 Geo. III. cap. 21 (1803),
subsequently to which the Acts of 50 Geo. III. cap. 168 (1810), and g
Vict. (June 18, 1846), were passed, each amending the former.

The Royal Pier, of which more hereafter, was erected under the 1
and 2 Will. IV. cap. 1 (1831), the powers of which were extended by
1 and 2 Vict. cap. 63 (1838).

The Harbour Board was reconstituted and all the above Acts were
consolidated in 1863, subsequently to which (1877) a further Act was
obtained. Under the powers thus given very extensive additions have
been made from time to time; the quay was extended from the Royal
Pier eastward for about 300 yards along the south side of the town,
while opposite the end of the High Street the town pier was projected
for some 150 yards at right angles with the quay, forming a part of it.
Still eastward a farther considerable extension of the quay has been
made of late, completely absorbing the old platform, the whole forming
an ample space for the ever-increasing traffic, and a handsome approach
to the town.

The general duties of the Harbour Board are the regulation of the
shipping in the roads and harbour, the marking out, maintaining, and
lighting channels, &c., much as in the old Act of 1803, an analysis
of which is given under “ Modern Trade.”

 

1 Journal sub annis,
H

Harbour
Board,
Ii4 CONDUITS AND WATERWORKS.

 

SecTion VI.—Conduits and Waterworks.

eo to Nicholas de Barbeflet or de Shirlee, on June 16, 1290 (18 Ed. 1.),

1290, obtained licence to grant, and the Friars Minor of Southampton to
receive, and to enclose with a stone wall, the fountain of Calwell or
Colwell, in the manor of Shirley, and thence to take the water under-
ground beyond the land of the said Nicholas to Achard’s Bridge, and
from that bridge by the king’s highway to their church in the town of
Southampton!

The Friars carried out their work as soon as they could; and ‘le

Conduit hede’ at Hill, or Friars’ Conduit at Spring Hill House, still
remains as a monument of their industry. It was made over by the
Town Council a few years ago to the Rev. J. L. Carrick, the owner of
the surrounding property, by whom it has been cleaned out and put in
order. It is an interesting structure, in three vaulted chambers, the
outermost of which.was evidently an addition to keep the whole under
Jock and key. Next to this, through a short passage, is an inner vault,
originally used as the water-head ; then at a sharp angle a low tunnel,
about 10 feet long, 2 feet g inches broad, and 5 feet high, leads to
the third chamber, about 6 feet in diameter, in which the water rises.
There is still a good supply, though it has been shortened by the cutting
of the main sewer down Hill Lane. From ‘le Conduit hede’ the Friars
took their water by a large leaden pipe to the neighbourhood of Ach-
ard’s Bridge, where they built the water-house, remains of which still
exist close to St. Peter’s Church. Into this water was subsequently
conveyed from Lobery Mead—the modern Grosvenor Square and
Polygon—where the remains of a small ancient stone conduit—called
Lobery, and by corruption Lubberly, or middle conduit—existed some
short time ago. There was also a ‘little conduit,’ the modern remains
of which in brick are still to be seen above Achard’s fountain in
Goswell or Waterhouse Lane.?

Friars grant The Friars granted the use of their water to the town on the Feast

water to . - : :

town, 1311, Of the Purification, 1310-11 (4 Ed. IL.), out of their singular reverence
to Henry, Archdeacon of Dorset, and their good-will to the community
of the town of Southampton, in the presence of Henry de Lacy, Earl
of Lincoln, at that time the King’s Lieutenant, and John Sandale,
the King’s Treasurer ;* allowing the burgesses to carry one pipe, with a

 

1 Pat. 18 Ed. I. m, 24. See also ‘ Friars Minor,’ below.

2 Court Leet Books, 1670 and 1652 ; Steward’s Books, 1493, 1474, 1461.

3 Appointed Regent, September 1310, during the King’s absence against the
Scots,

4 Afterwards (1316) Bishop of Winchester ; appointed Treasurer, July 1310.
CONDUITS AND WATERWORKS. Irs

 

key, from the cistern of their lavatory to English Strect through the
Friary wall; the burgesses also erecting at their own cost outside the
wall of the Friary a cistern to receive the water, and providing for the
waste to be conveyed back into the cloisters of the Friary.t

“In process of time the pipes ran to decay, and the Friars were not
“ rich enough to put them in repair: so one of the burgesses having left
** a legacy towards the repair of them, the Friars conveyed all their right
* and title to the conduit head, pipes, &c., to the mayor and corporation
* by the following grant :” 2—

To all the faithful in Christ, &c,, Robert Horewoode, warden of the Order of ‘Le con-
Friars Minor of the town of Southampton, and the convent there: Whereas duit noe
our conduit-head at Hill, together with the system of leaden pipes from it, has ton mee
fallen into decay, we, on the requisition of John Flemyng and Thomas Winter-
bone, executors of the will of John Bennett, late a burgess of Southampton,
grant the same, for the good of his soul, to John Mascall, mayor, and to the
community of Southampton : the executors engaging to erect a conduit opposite
Holy Rood Church, and to bring the whole of the water thither through leaden pipes
newly made at their expense, though partly with the old materials, and at this
conduit to fit two pipes of equal capacity, one to discharge into a cistern for the
use of the mayor and community, the other to be carried, also at the expense of
the executors, to the old place for the supply of the Friars within their cemetery
wall, The date of this patent is Southampton, October 3 (8 Hen. V.) 1420.

In 1515 (7 Hen. VIII) John Flemynge, of the town of Southamp-
ton, Esq., in a deed of gift dated June Ist, sets forth that—

Whereas the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses possess a waterhouse in yobery
Goswell Lane, into which water is conveyed from a water-head in Lobery Mead conduit
belonging to him, he conveys to the mayor, &c., the head in Lobery Mead and ae
the watercourse, with permission of entrance for repairs, as well in Lobery Mead a
as elsewhere between the said spring and the head in Goswell Lane. His seal
of arms being unknown to many, the deed is attested by a notary public in
presence of the right honourable and prudent men, John Dawtrey, Esq., and
Richard Palshyd, collectors of customs in the town and port of Southampton,
Nicholas Cowarte, Richard Hyll, and John Husee, gentlemen, with many
others.

By indenture of agreement with the Corporation (Aug. 21, 1515),
the same John Flemynge obtained leave to put a

‘ Sosprey, otherwise called a small pipe of lead made with a stop,’ into the main
pipe of the conduit ‘ at the south-west corner of All Hallows Church unto the said
church wall, and there to issue out at a cock of brass to be made staunch’ at the
cost of the said John Flemynge ; to be used at all times between All Hallows Tide
and the beginning of August, provided there were sufficient water at the other
conduits, He undertook to enclose the place; and the warden of the Friars
(now Observants)—‘because the conduit first moved and came by the said Friars’

 

1 Lib, Rememb. H. f. 113 b.
2 Tbid., ff 114,115. The document, transcribed at length by Dr, Speed, is
only given in substance above,
Pedley's
proposal,
1594.

116 CONDUITS AND WATERWORKS.

 

—and the mayor of the town were to have keys, with power to stop the water if
the other conduits gave out, and to close the sosprey permanently if it were
proved detrimental to the other supplies.+

Many years after this a certain Roger Pedley of Southampton,
yeoman, undertook to bring a stream of water, four feet broad and two
feet, deep, to the Bargate, and thence a stream into the town, one foot
broad and one deep; or, failing this, to use the existing springs and
bring water into a conduit-house to be erected at the east end of St.
Michael’s Church, whence water should flow for all, day and night.
In consideration of this the Corporation leased to him, 26th June (37
Eliz.) 1594—

All their banks, ponds, and ditches round the town walls, together with their
garden plot on the south side of the George, on part of which lately stood a
pound, and a strip of waste along the highway leading from the town towards the
common, for the term of160 years at forty shillings annual rent. Leave was given
him to petition the Queen in the name of the Corporation for power to bring water
from any stream within ten miles of the town for the said work through any
man’s ground ; it being arranged that any grant or privilege coming to the Cor-
poration in consequence of such petition should be reconveyed by the town to
Pedley, &c., for 160 years at the yearly rent of twelve pence, (It does not appear
that he made such petition.) Pedley was to have the monopoly of water supply,
and to keep his system in repair for 160 years, nor suffer his stream to overflow :
for the purpose of scouring the channel at needful times he might divert the
water through Gosling Lane, and make a conduit at the end of it. He was
forbidden to avail himself of any water then in use or damage the old conduits ;
and failing any dondé fide carrying out of his plan within seven years from the
date of lease, the indenture was to be void,?

“ 4.D. 1617.—The sons of the above Roger Pedley surrendered this
* lease into the hands of the Corporation, who granted a new one to
“ Arthur Baker for sixty years. a.D. 1620.—The rent was reduced from
* twenty shillings to three shillings and fourpence. a.D. 1675.—The
“ house where the leaden cistern stood at St. Michael’s was taken down.?
“ From all which it is plain that the scheme did not succeed ;” and the
town continued to be supplied from the old Friars’ head ; the repairs
to the water system being provided for by rate on the inhabitants from
time to time.* “ They went on in this manner very well till about the
“ year 1738, when some captious people refused to pay the rate and
“raised such a mutinous uproar in the town, that the Corporation

 

1 The two last documents, from papers in the Audit House, given at length
by Dr. Speed, are here considerably abridged,

2 Boke of Remembrances, f.184. Dr. Speed has given this document in
full; it is here very much abridged.

3 “ Journal,”

4 Dr, Speed refers to the ‘Boke of the Condyte Money, 1536,’ in which the
names of the inhabitants are set down with a certain sum against each.
CONDUITS AND WATERWORKS. 117

 

es _ ought fit to waive this their undoubted right and joined with the Lave a
“mutineers in a petition? for an Act of Papltainenie? by which the Pallas
__unele property and management of the town waterworks are vested pe
“in commissioners, of whom the mayor, recorder, and six senior bur-

“ gesses are always to be eight, and twenty-four others are to be chosen

“yearly out of the several parishes as other parish officers are chosen.

“ The consequence of this is that the town is now supplied with the

“ same water just as it was before at five times the expense.

“ Besides this conveyance of water to the town, there are in a com- Hound-
“mon field called Houndwell Field two springs, from which the water ae
“is conveyed into a water-house in the same field. What the original
use of this house was I nowhere find; but 6 Henry VII. (1490) a ‘ new
well’ was made here, and ‘a watering place for hors and a washing
place for women.’ There is another conduit of which I find no
mention anywhere. It stands near the Hospital of God’s House, and aoe
as the master of that hospital brought the water to the convent of conduit.
* the Friars, it is very probable that ie at the same time continued
“it to the neighbourhood of his own hospital.”

The water system of the town is described in the Act of 6 and 7 Water
Will. IV. cap. 96 (1836), for maintaining the public conduits and toe
other waterworks, and for providing an atlditiorsil supply—as_ com- 73°
mencing from several springs and conduit heads, and a conduit head
and adjacent pump—Achard’s—at some distance from the town, from
whence the water was distributed to four public conduits in the High
Street, known as All Saints, Holy Rood, Friary, and God’s House
conduits, and also to Houndwell water-house in the Houndwell common
meadow. Of the two water sources at Houndwell, that to the south
was supposed to be of great efficacy in diseases of the eye, and was
constantly resorted to in the last century for its peculiar properties.

On the removal of these conduits the town was supplied by upwards
of forty public fountains or conduits erected from time to time in con-
venient places ; but with the increasing population a larger supply was
demanded. The old Act of 1747 was amended by 43 Geo. III. cap.

32 (1803), and that again by 50 Geo. III. cap. 20 (1810). Water-

works on the common had been constructed under the old Acts, but

in 1830 the Commissioners obtained from the Corporation a grant of

an acre and a half of Jand for an additional reservoir to be formed at

 

1 Journal, Nov. 3, 1738; Nov. 6 and 30, 1739.

2 20 Geo, II. cap. 15, 1747: An Act for repairing, improving, and main-
taining the public conduits and other waterworks to the town of Southampton.
Stat, at Large, vol. xix. p. 45.

3 See “ Register of the Convent,”
: well

jon,

118 CONDUITS AND WATERWORKS.

 

the north of that already existing, in order to bring water from Wood
Mill and thus augment the supply gathered from the common.

The Act above mentioned of 1836 repealed all the former, and gave
increased powers to the commissioners, the mayor, recorder, aldermen,
and councillors, together with twenty-six elected inhabitants; and
shortly afterwards the artesian well on the common was projected.
From July 1838 to February 1851 the excavations on this well were
carried on—the total cost of the work being about £20,000, and a
total depth of 1317 feet was reached. Of this, by means of iron
cylinders and brickwork, 464 feet were sunk through the tertiary beds ;
the diameter at the top of the shaft being 13 feet, diminishing to 7 feet
at the lower part. The beds passed through consisted of 2 feet of
soil, 74 feet lower Bagshot beds of sand and clay in alternations, 304
feet of London clay, consisting of sandy clay with seams of water-
bearing sand, and pebble beds towards the top, 84 feet of plastic clay,
with the usual bed of greensand at the base. The chalk was reached
at a depth of 464 feet, where the masonry was terminated. The seven-
foot shaft was continued gg feet in the chalk. A boring was then made
with a 74-inch augur to a further depth of 754 feet, making a total of
853 feet in the chalk and 1317 from the surface. The chalk con-
tained flints all but the last ro feet, which contained veins of clay and
were very cloggy. At this point the boring was stopped, the results
not being considered sufficiently promising.

Most of the water of the well appeared to come from the chalk.
Previously to 1842, when the boring commenced, 20,000 gallons per
day were raised; in 1844, after considerable progress had been made
in boring, this increased to 50,000 gallons, and finally, in September
1851, to 130,000 gallons.

The question of this well was before the Geological Section of the
British Association at Southampton in 1846, and again at the meeting
of the Association in August 1882, when the recommencement of the
boring was contemplated, an opinion being elicited to the effect that the
experiment would be well worth trial, either by driving out horizontally
in the chalk to intercept water fissures, or by continuing the boring to
the upper greensand, and if necessary through the gault to the lower
greensand Accordingly, on October 14, 1882, after further considera-
tion, the Town Council resolved on a contract for the completion of
the work, the results of which are looked forward to with the utmost
interest.

Returning to the works under the Act of 1836, two wells were sunk

 

"Paper of Messrs. Shore & Westlake, read before the British Association,
August 1882; report of discussion in local papers, &c.
PAVEMENT, LIGHTING, AND WATCIIING. 119

 

at Northam, one at a cost of £2932, 16s. 6d., the other £357, 7s. 8d. ;
the reservoirs and mains cost £2084, 10s.

In 1850 another Act (13 and 14 Vict., July 15) was obtained, under More
which, and the Public Health Acts of 1848 and 1850, new works were ae
commenced. <A supply of water was obtained from near Mansbridge,
beyond Wood Mill, in the valley of the Itchen, about a couple of miles
to the east of the new waterworks. Here a reservoir and engine-
houses for pumping were constructed, and two new reservoirs adjoining
each other formed on the common near its northern limit, capable of
holding together about 5,000,000 gallons.

In addition to these, the town is supplied from three older reservoirs
to the south, which in the aggregate are of equal capacity with the
more recent. Thus a copious distribution is secured through every
street and court.

Section VII.—Pavement, Lighting, and Watching.

A pavage, or toll in aid of paving, had been granted to Southamp- 1384.
ton as early as the 8 Richard II. (1384).1. The following entries occur
under 1457: ‘To the pavyer for payyng of iij teyse? and an halfe in
the myddylle of the stret be Robert Belhows [the Seneschal’s] dore,
and for ij pottes of sand ij’. x*. Item, to the pavyer of London for
pavyng of xij teyse of pavement taking viij®. for a teyse x*. vilj*” There
must have been some extras. Under 1441 we have several accounts of
paving stones being provided.®

In 1477 (17 Ed. IV.) the following Paving Act was passed :— Act 1477:

‘To the right wise and discrete Comons in this present Parlement assembled,
humble besechen unto youre Wisdoms the Maire, Shirrefs, and Bailiffs of the
Towne of Suthampton that where the said Towne is full febly paved and full
perilous and jeopardouse to ride or goo theryn and in especiall in the High
Street3 of the said Towne, that is to seie froo the Barre yate to the Watergate and
other ij Streetes there gretly occupied withe Cariage and for faute of paving
there, divers youre Lieges and other Straungers thider resorting have been often-
tymes gretly hurte and in perill of their Lives, and the said Mair, Shirefs, and
Baillifs have no Londes nor Tenementes, Rentes nor other yerly revenu3 in
Com6n wherby they may make and repare the pavements in the same Towne
requisite3,’

It was ordered in consequence that owners of property, on notice
from the mayor, sheriff, and bailiffs, should be compelled to pave at
their own charges before their doors as far as the middle of the street,

 

1 Pat. 8 R. Il. m. 31.

2 Afathom, The tese in London was (29 Ed. I, 1300-1) stated to be
7% feet in length, and ‘one foot of St, Paul’ in breadth (see Liber Albus, i,
279; Liber Custum. i. 100).

3 Steward’s Books,
our,

iting.

ching.

120 PAVEMENT, LIGHTING, AND WATCHING.

 

and on their failing to do so within a quarter of a year after such
notice, it became lawful for the mayor, &c., to pave and levy costs by
distress. Tenants on being distrained for what the landlords should
pay might stop the amount out of their rents, or recover by action of
debt in the court of the town.!

In pursuance of this Act it was ordered (December 1482) that—

“A paviour be ordeyned to dwell in a house of the towne, price of xiij®. ilij4.,
rent free, and to have yerely a gowne to this intent that he shall with a sargent
of the same towne doo serche the pavement of the said towne, and also to pave
in all places nedefull withyn the said towne and doo all thyng that longeth to
that office, takyng his wages for his labor as it is used for a Tese: provided
alway that the stone and all maner thyng to the said pavement belongyng be

ordeyned by bhym or theym afore wose house the pavement shall bee noyouse or
nedefull of reparacon,’ 2

The town paviour remained an institution, the price of his work
varying. In 1509 he was paid for ‘ paving 154% toyses, from the
beginning of Bargate to the Barrs without the gate, every tees vj*.’
In 1579 a paviour appointed for life covenants to pave the streets and
lanes at 13d. a yard, and not more; but if employed for private paving
in courts or enclosures, he may charge according to agreement.*

The pavement continued to be regulated by the Act of 1477 till
November 1769, when a new paving scheme was matured; and on
12th December the town seal was affixed to a petition to Parliament
for a bill embodying the recommendations of committees of the Corpo-
ration and of the original promoters of the scheme ; and on February 24,
1770, to a further petition for including lighting and watching: all of
which was carried into effect by the 10 Geo. ITI. cap. 25, 1770.

Little occurs on the ancient lighting of the town.

On the watch there is more to be said. The Statute of Winchester
(13 Ed. I., 1285) provided that the gates of walled towns should be
closed from sunset to sunrise; that no one should lodge in the town or
suburbs from nine in the evening till day unless his host would be
responsible for him; that the bailiffs of towns should every week, or at
least every fifteen days, make strict inquiry concerning all inmates.
The towns were to be kept, as in time past, by watches proportioned
to the number of the population. Strangers might be arrested on
suspicion, or the hue-and-cry raised after them. These regulations,
which did little more than enforce old traditions, were comparatively

 

1 Dr, Speed has this Act; it is printed in the Rolls of Parliament, and is
here given in abstract. In the same year provision was made for paving Can-
terbury, Taunton, Cirencester, and other places,

2 Liber Niger, fol. 1 b.

3 Boke of Remembrances, fol, 136 b.
PAVEMENT, LIGHTING, AND WATCIIING. 121

 

fresh at the date of the copy of the guild ordinances given below
(see Nos. 46 to 51).

The division of the town into wards for the sake of order is no
doubt immemorial. There were five wards at the time of the
ordinances, each with its organisation ; afterwards there were four,
which appear to have been subdivided on special occasions or emer-
gencies. About 1504, four wards are described, each with its alder-
man and his ‘ vynteners’—inferior officers literally having charge of
twenty. A little later the town was divided into eight, and even ten
parts, very accurately described, each with its warden. About 1521
the watch was ordered to be nightly kept, and strict search made once
a week by every alderman through his ward. The wards were :—
(1.) St. Michael’s and St. John’s parishes; (2.) Holy Rood; (3.) St.
Lawrence’s; and (4.) All Saints: four or five vinteners and a sergeant
being assigned to each alderman. Closely on this there follows an
order for six ‘new watchings’ within the town ; two were to keep the
walls, the other four to go about the streets, and ‘ofttimes to walk up
to the Castle Hill, and there to have a good prospect of the sea’ and
every quarter of the town, to guard against fire and surprise.) In 1544
there were four wards set, and Jater in the same year eight; and in 1570
(12 Eliz.) we find the town similarly divided into eight parts, and
furnished with eight principal wardens, the mayor and his brethren
being desired by the Jord-lieutenant to see that all the able men within
the liberties, amounting in the whole to 439, were supplied with
armour and weapons, and that none left the town or liberties without
permission. But in the following July, all the householders were
turned into special constables, and were desired to have in their shops,
or other places next the street, ‘holbertes or clobbes contynually stand-
ing, to be at all tymes redye to assist Mr. Maior.’? Judging from the
court leet books, we might suppose that Dogberry and his crew had
taken charge of the borough watch a little later; for under 1577 it is
complained that only ‘weak and poor men’ are set to do the work:
benceforward the householders were themselves to perform their lot, or
provide sufficient deputies. They were warned of their turn, beat, and
hours by the sergeants, who also reported to Mr. Mayor each morning
the names of the watchers through the previous hours, so that no
man might be charged with this duty on successive nights.

A little later, the total male population for the purposes of muster,
between the ages of sixteen and sixty, being 495, we find 421 able-
bodied men armed with calivers, pikes, bows, and bills. In 1583 there

 

 

1 Boke of Remembrances, ff. 21 b, 22.
2 Muster Bock, 1544 ; Boke of Remembrances, ff. 108 b, 113.

Wards,

Muster
Rolls,
tch and
d.

122 PAVEMENT, LIGHTING, AND WATCHING.

 

were 439 able-bodied men all named, householders and others; the
women finding substitutes. The summary of weapons was as follows:
—Corselets, 34; morion heads (conical skull-caps), 45; hand-guns,
16; jacks (jerkins), 6; bows, 713 sheaves of arrows, 86; halberts,
37; bills, 195; pikes, 23; swords, 41; daggers, 38; coriars (cuirasses),
13; alman-rivetes (light armour), 31; hagbashes (heavy hand-guns),
28; shirts of mail, 1; skulls, 12; steel caps, 2. The total number of
males in 1589 was 600, able-bodied 505. In this year Walter Lam-
bert was captain, and William Abere, gent., muster-master appointed
by the lord-lieutenant of the shire. There were two lieutenants,
two ensigns, four serjeants, two drummers, one fife, and one clerk.
The names and kinds of arms were enumerated as usual under the
wards, Some possessed their own arms, some found arms for others ;
some householders provided two or even three men.? Ecclesiastics
bore their part. Under 1621, in answer to Privy Council letters
directed to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Bishop Andrewes, with
the advice of his chancellor, Sir Thomas Ridley, issued a mandate for
the provision of horse, arms, and other furniture required from every
benefice. The parsonage of St. Mary was called upon for one light
horse, no more being required from the Dean of Winchester or the
college. The vicarages of Holy Rood and St. Michael were to furnish
one ‘muscat’ each; the parsonage of All Saints the same. St.
Lawrence and St. John, under sequestration at this time for the non-
payment of dues, were passed over.?

Returning to the more special watch and ward of the town in the
troublous times of January 1642, four householders, severally armed
with musket and sword, and stocked with powder, bullets, and lighted
match, watched each night in their own persons, or if validly hindered,
found sufficient deputies, in the suburb above Bar and in East Street;
and six householders within the walls ‘in the most convenient places
for discovery.” In the daytime two sufficed for the watch above Bar.
Persons were warned of their turn in the usual way, those for night
ward being required to appear before the mayor at eight o’clock in the
evening to receive their charge, and at six o’clock in the morning they
were relieved by the day watch. This order, to remain in force till
Mr. Mayor and the justices should arrange otherwise, was not to
supersede ‘the former ancient watch.’ Every Sunday, during the time
of divine service, the gates of the town were kept shut, with the
exception of the wickets at Bargate and Water-gate.

 

1 Muster Books. See also Journal, September 12, 1612, and July 16, 1628.
2 Extracts from the Registers of Bishop Andrewes and others belonging to
Jesus Chapel, Peartree Green.
PAVEMENT, LIGHTING, AND WATCIIING. 123

 

In 1656 the vestry of St. Lawrence furnished soldiers for keeping
watch and ward, employing one or two at a time constantly, in accor-
dance with a custom of ancient time in every town or parish.

Under the national scare arising out of the impostures of Oates, the
town dreaded being surprised or set on fire in November 1678. The
watch was accordingly ordered to be trebled, and twelve persons were
warned for this purpose, half of whom at least were to be provided with
firearms. Later on we gather from the minutes of St. Lawrence’s
parish that the public arrangements for the nightly watch were con-
sidered insufficient ; at least in 1731, when the vestry agreed to main-
tain a watchman out of the poor-rate for their parish, and applied to
the justices for relief from contributing to the public watch.

The Corporation petitioned in 1739 for an Act to regulate the watch
as well as maintain the waterworks, but nothing seems to have been
effected as to watching till 1770.

The earliest regulations on the condition of the streets and of sani-
tation are contained in the ordinances of the Guild (see Nos. 42, 43).
In spite of these, the town was often very filthy, though the court leet
did not fail to draw attention to the matter without respect of persons.
‘Mr. Maire kepith a sowe in his backsyde,’—so runs a plain-spoken pre-
sentment of 1550,—‘ whiche is brought in and oute contrary to the
ordenaunce of the towne: wherfore be yt comanded to hym and all
other that they kepe no hoges within the towne to the anoyaunce of
theire neighbours upon payne that every of them that so shall kepe any
swyne to forfyte for every xv daies he shall so offende, xx“ Kine were
not to be milked or fed in the streets ; slaughter-houses were not allowed
within the walls; slops were never to be thrown into the streets; re-
fuse-heaps would not be tolerated ; ditches, culverts, bunneys were to
be kept clear. Yet from the earliest steward’s accounts (1441) the
town books abound in violations of these wholesome rules, and the
court leet has not seldom to fly at the highest game. The ‘ Proffeste
of God’s house’ was presented in 1559 for neglecting a sanitary duty ;
dung mixons were constantly found about the streets and Janes, and
even before the church doors. ‘There is a greate heape of soyle and
roobidge befor Mr. Mayor his garden in the Easte Street’ (1576). At
another time the alderman of Portswood was presented for ‘ haveing
severall loades of dunge within Rockstone gate w hee is pleased to calle
his priviledge, but we amerce him 1j°. vj°?

We learn through the court Jeet book of 1675, from a back refer-
ence to books of more than a century previous, that by ancient custom

 

1 Churchwarden’s Accounts ; also Instructions from Privy Council as to
Musters.

Condition
of streets
and
sanitary
arrange-
ments.

 
vage-
ley.

veyors
igh-
iS

m
aney-
2per,

cautions
nst

of 1770.

124 PAVEMENT, LIGHTING, AND WATCHING.

 

of the town scavage-money for the payment of scavengers (in the
modern sense) was a duty payable by every housekeeper of the town,
and was formerly collected by two persons in each ward appointed by
the court leet jury, who not only collected the money, but directed
the scavengers in their work. The money was always delivered to the
steward.

In the seventeenth century there were twelve survevors of the high-
ways, two for each of the following wards or divisions :—Holy Rood,
St. Lawrence, All Saints without the Bar, St. Michael and St. John,
All Saints within the Bar, Bag-row and East Street.

The chimney-sweeper to the town was a new official in 1654; he
was regularly sworn into his office, to the effect that he would be ready
at every call to sweep any number of chimneys at the rate of fourpence
apiece; and to secure the residence and due attention of so useful a
functionary, every householder was to pay him one penny per annum,
“as is used in many other cytyes and townes, called by y* name of a
smoake peny.’?

For provision against fire, hooks or crooks and ladders were always
kept in readiness in the market-place,? and in 1675 ‘ engines’ besides
the crooks. No local orders have been met with as to the construction
of roofs or walls; but as a provision against fire, no one was permitted
(1657) to keep hay or other combustible matter in any loft or room,
near a dwelling-house within the town; and in 1684, during the dry
season, tubs of water were required to be kept standing day and night
at every housekeeper’s door,

We may now join the threads of our narrative at the Act of 1770
(10 Geo. III. cap. 25), ‘for the better paving, repairing, and cleansing
the streets and other public passages in the several parishes and wards
of St. Michael, St. John, Holy Rood, St. Lawrence, All Saints within
the Bar, All Saints without the Bar, and East Street and Bag-row
within the town and liberties of Southampton; and for preventing
nuisances and annoyances therein; and for widening and rendering
the same more commodious ; and for lighting and watching the said
streets and public passages.’ In dealing with the Bar gate and walls,
we have noticed some of the earlier work of the commissioners under
this Act. In 1810 further powers were obtained under another local
Act (50 Geo. III. cap. 169) ; and by the Municipal Corporations Act,
1835, and continued in 1882, the watching was placed under a com-
mittee of the Corporation, to be from time to time elected.

 

1 Court Leet Books, 1640, 1675, 1654.
2 Journal, 1618; Court Leet Book, 1615.
AUDIT-HOUSE AND MARKETS. 125

 

In 1838 the widening of Bridge Street,! which with the increasing
trafic had become both inconvenient and dangerous as a thorough-
fare, and many other alterations in the streets and roads, were taken i in
hand by the Improvement Commissioners; but it was soon found
advisable to obtain further powers to meet the growing necessities of
the town. A committee was appointed in September 1843 to con-
sider the expediency of obtaining an Act to amend and enlarge the
Paving and Lighting Acts? In 1770, when the first Act was passed,
the population could not have exceeded 6000; in 1811, after the
passing of the second, it was but 9617; in 1841 it was 247,774; anda
couple of years later it was upwards of 30,000. Extensive suburbs had
sprung up, which had never been contemplated under the old Acts, and
were not reached by their provisions; the need of an Improvement Act
adapted to the enlarged circumstances had therefore become urgent.
A comparison of the property rated to the poor with that liable to rates
under the Acts gave the following results:—Rateable value to paving,
&c., £44,329; rateable value to poor-rates, £96,088, leaving a differ-
ence of property to the extent of £51,759 not rated to paving. In
1844 the desired Act (7 & 8 Vict., 1844, July 19) was passed for
‘paving, lighting, draining, cleansing, and otherwise improving the
town, and for removing and preventing nuisances and annoyances
therein.” The existing Acts were repealed, together with so much of
the 13 Geo. III. cap. 50 as related to the repairs of highways, &c.
Finally, the powers of the old Improvement and Waterworks Com-
missioners ceased upon the application of the Public Health Act, 1848,
to Southampton.

The Corporation became the Local Board of Health, and are now
in this respect known as the Urban Sanitary Authority,

Section VIII.
Audit-House and Markets—Municipal Buildings.

In the early part of the fourteenth century the church of St. Cross Old Audit-
or Holy Rood was removed from the middle of the High Street to ae
its present position farther back, after which the Audit-house was
erected on the ancient site of the church. Notices of it occur in 1457,
1471, and other years. Leland (1549), describing the features of the
High Street, says, ‘There ys a fair house buildid yn the midle of this
streat for accomptes to be made yn.’ The accounts were frequently
made palatable with rare good wine and jollification. Had the anti-
quary turned over the steward’s books, he would have come across

 

1 Report of Improvement Committee, December 5, 1838,
2 Report of Committee, September 29, 1843.
ltry-
ket.

“ket,

126 AUDIT-HOUSE AND MARKETS.

 

entries like the following :—‘ This hys the expensse of y* mayer and
hys bretheryn in the Audyt-hows atte etyng of the bukke that my lord
of Arendell giff the vj day of September’ (1473). The fabric was, as
usual, in two stages, the lower being available for market or shops.?
“The market for butter, eggs, &c., was originally kept in the High
“ Street opposite St. Lawrence’s Church ; the fish-market in St. Michael’s
“Square, and the butchers’ shambles at the dead wall of the Friary.”

In reference to the former, many inhabitants and strangers having
represented to the Corporation that there was no shelter at St.
Lawrence’s Cross against the rain and tempest, ‘ which often happened
on market-days,’ whereby victuals, buyers, and sellers were the worse, it
was agreed (March 1570, 12 Eliz.) to erect a convenient and comely
market at the south end of the Audit-house, which was carried out by
June, and to abandon the old site at the cross.2 The intended removal
gave offence to some few, and attempts were made to stop it after the
election of the new mayor, Reynold Howse; upon which the Corpora-
tion exhibited a lengthy document to the Queen’s Council, setting forth
the reasons which had induced them to make the change; the old
place had been found too small, was uncovered, and the chatter of the
market-folk annoyed the worshippers in the church close by; every
formality had been complied with; only a few interested persons of no
weight had made objection, and to such the order and governance of
the town did not belong.?

The fish-market in St. Michael’s Square had an erection over it;
in 1457 a portion of this was Jet as the ‘Cloth-house’ for twenty
shillings a year;* in 1525 the ‘loft’ over the fish-market was let to
the warden of the bakers for twenty years at twenty shillings a year °—
fish odour disagreeing with neither cloth or bread. This market was
slightly peripatetic. Some time before 1603 it was at the poultry cross
or market in the High Street, and was in that year ordered back to
the Square ; in 1615 it was again sent into the High Street above the
Audit-house near the Bullring, where it remained till the erection of
the new Audit-house. “ A.D. 1698.—The Corporation built butchers’
“ shambles at the Market-house.’’ ®

In the latter half of the eighteenth century the old Audit-house did
not strike visitors with the same admiration with which it had affected

 

1 In the Steward’s Book of 1457 ‘void places’ under the ‘town hall’ are let.
This must refer to the Audit-house, as under the ‘town’ or ‘guild’ hall at Bar-
gate there could have been no such accommodation,

2 Boke of Remembrances, f, 104 b,

3 Lib. Rememor. BB., ff. 45, 46. 4 Steward’s Books.

” Boke of Remembrances, f. 26 b,

: Court Leet Books and Journals,
AUDIT-HOUSE AND MARKETS. 127

 

the great antiquary upwards of two centuries before. It had been Old Audit-
patched up from time to time, and extensive improvements were made fecal
in 1763; but the inevitable fact had to be faced that the building was

no longer fit for the town, and modern requirements demanded that it

should be improved off the face of the High Street.

In 1771 a new site, considered then fairly central, consisting of the Mavens
house and garden of Mr. Alderman Purbeck, about 230 feet long and Par
between 40 and 50 feet broad, was purchased by the Corporation for
£1305, and the first stone of the present Audit-house was laid on
September 27, 1771, in presence of Edward Noble, Esq., mayor. The
architect was Mr. John Crunden, of Bolton Street, Piccadilly. His
work was much admired, and it was quite on a level with buildings of
the kind in other large towns. The outlay was over £7000. The
facade towards the street, of Portland stone and in the Doric style, can
hardly be described in the terms usual at the time. But the building
is a handsome edifice in two stages, the lower of which was till lately
open and used as a market ; above were the council chamber (as at
present), the office of the town-clerk, that of the borough treasurer, and
the various other municipal offices, which also of later years occupied a
house adjoining to the south, now rebuilt in the recent improvements,
and adapted to the general plan. The council chamber has a good
interior. Several fine pictures adorn its walls, some the gift of the late
G. F. Pitt, Esq., in 1831, who also in the same year presented to the
town his collection of books for a free library, which, together with
fifty-three volumes presented by the Record Commission in 1834, are
now incorporated'in the library of the Hartley Institute. A sword of
state—a medieval two-handed weapon—drawn in time of war, and the
old colours of the Southampton Volunteers, occupy corners of the
apartment. The council chamber was intended no less as a hall
for meetings and banquets than for the business of the council, the
existing clerk’s room, lately the town-clerk’s apartment, serving at first
for the business of the Corporation.

The Audit-house was opened on October 5, 1773, but for purposes Removal

: : 7 of markeis,
of marketing many old-fashioned folk, as usual, refused to take kindly
to the changed locality, and so much trouble seemed likely to arise
that the Corporation thought of applying for an Act to establish and
regulate the new market. However, with the aid of the recorder,
matters were settled in a less costly fashion, proclamation being made,
October 22, 1774, notifying the removal of all the markets, with the
exception of those for corn and grain, to the new site.1_ The markets

 

1 On November 25, 1788, an atrocious attempt was made to burn the premises
by means of combustibles placed under the butchers’ shambles in Market Lane,
seorge’s
rket,

h Street
red,

128 THE HARTLEY INSTITUTE.

 

removed are specified as those for butter, eggs, and poultry; for
butchers’ meat; for herbs, fruit, and garden stuff; and also for fish
atid other provisions, which had til] then been kept in and about the
late market or Audit-house and near the Dolphin and Nag’s Head
Inns.

In 1816, more room being required, the green-market again took
possession of the High Street, under authority of the Commissioners of
Pavement, till a better place should be provided. In September 1822
an additional green-market was established, by proclamation, in a
building provided in the Ditches adjoining the new butchers’ market,
which had been opened in April 1821, near the bridge crossing the
canal at the bottom of Bridge Street. This range of buildings, erected
by private venture, and situated opposite the Wheatsheaf Inn, was
called St. George’s Market. The green-market was thus disposed of ;
but yet another and a last sweep was needed for the High Street, the
pigs being still in front of Holy Rood Church on the ancient site.
These the Commissioners of Pavement successfully attacked in August
1832, and by the aid of the Corporation they were finally driven into
St. George’s Market before the end of the year.

As has been stated, the Audit-house of 1771 has now been consider-
ably enlarged, and convenience has been secured, though the general
result can hardly be said to be worthy of the town. It was the best
that could be done on the present site. The architect was Mr. James
Lemon, C.E.; the outlay something over £3000. On the ground
floor are arranged the offices of the borough surveyor, medical officer
of health, inspector of nuisances, borough engineer, and inspector of
weights and measures. In the basement is the muniment room. On
the upper floor are the council chamber and anteroom, the committee
room, mayor’s parlour, town-clerk’s offices, those of the borough trea-
surer and clerk of accounts, &c.

It may be anticipated that this arrangement, however commodious,
will give place before many years are over to a more suitable and digni-
fied building.

The corner-stone of the additional buildings was laid by J. B.
Thomas, Esq., then mayor, on October 22, 1879, and a year from that
date—namely, on Wednesday, October 20, 1880—the whole of the
improvements had been finished, and were formally opened by the
mayor, W. H. Rogers, Esq.

SecrTion 1X.—TZhe Hartley Institute.

Those whose recollection of Southampton can carry them some few
years back will remember the three dreary-looking red-brick houses
THE HARTLEY INSTITUTE. 129

 

with narrow casements, dating apparently from the early part of the
last century, in one of which Henry Robinson Hartley formerly re-
sided, as his father had before him. But the houses had been closely
shut up for many years, and the few old elm-trees in front could not
redeem this spot from being a most melancholy eyesore to the other-
wise beautiful High Street.

Henry Robinson Hartley came into a good fortune, just after he
had attained his legal full age, on the death of his father in April 1800.
Henry Hartley, the father, descended from an old family of gentry in
the Craven district, had come from the North and settled in South-
ampton as a wine importer, the great local trade of the time; his uncle,
Mr. George Robinson, having preceded him about 1744. Mr. Robin-
son became sheriff of the town in 1751 and mayor in 1762 and 1773;
and Henry Hartley obtained the mayoralty in 1775.

Soon after coming into his property, the subject of this notice shut
up his house and left the town; nor did he ever return to reside in
Southampton, visiting the place only so occasionally and privately that
he was known by sight to few. He was supposed to have taken an
aversion to the town; yet when he died at Calais, aged seventy-two, on
May 24, 1850, it was found that by will bearing date August 13, 1843,
he, then residing at Newington in Surrey, after making certain be-
quests to relatives and servants, had given the whole residue of his
personal estate to the mayor and Corporation of his native town, upon
trust, to employ the proceeds in such a manner as might best promote
the study and advancement of the sciences of natural history, astro-
nomy, antiquities, and classical and Oriental literature in the town of
Southampton; such as by forming a public library, botanic gardens,
observatory, and collections of objects in connection with the above
sciences, in the parish of Holy Rood.

The property amounted to £103,887 ; but the will being disputed,
and a long and expensive Chancery suit ensuing, the Corporation, after
paying some £35,000 taxed costs and compromising with some of the
claimants, realised at length, in 1858, no more than the sum of £42,525.
Having thus far, at such heavy cost, vindicated the will, the Corporation
sought the advice of the town as to the form the bequest should assume ;
and in November the same year the general opinion was pronounced
in favour of a scheme not very unlike what has been carried out.
Accordingly in 1859 an order of the Court of Chancery was made
establishing the present Hartley Institute on the above general lines.
It was arranged that the sum of £15,000 should be laid out on the site
and buildings; and as the three houses above spoken of, the leasehold
interest of which Mr. Hartley had owned, offered a favourable site, the
spot connected personally with Mr, Hartley was selected; and the

I
130 THE HARTLEY INSTITUTE.

 

Corporation having acquired by gift from Queen’s College, Oxford,
the freehold of the houses, added to the estate some Corporation land
at the back, made the most of the money that had fallen to them, and
began to build. The foundation-stone was laid by Lord Palmerston in
1860, and the Institute was formally opened by him, October 15, 1862,
Dr. Bond having been appointed curator.

The building is a handsome Palladian structure in three storeys, with
a facade of about 74 feet to the High Street. A triple entrance, with
caryatides, opens into a spacious hall supported by columns and adorned
with statuary, out of which runs a wide corridor leading to the lecture
theatre, art galleries, secondary staircases, &c. To the left of the main
entrance is the apartment of the Southampton Chamber of Commerce,
beyond which are lavatories. On the right of the entrance are the council
and the executive officer’s rooms. The main staircase is to the left hand
of the entrance to the corridor. Beyond this and to the left of the corridor
is the museum—which may eventually be turned into the library on a
further building scheme—5o0 feet long, and having two galleries
entered from the main stairease. The theatre, at the end of the corridor,
fitted with large orchestral and two side galleries, is about 64 feet long by
58 broad, and calculated for 1000 persons. Beyond the theatre and at the
sides are art galleries and lecture rooms. On the first storey, main entrance,
are a handsome reading-room, 70 feet long, anda library adjoining. On
the upper storey the chemical department is arranged. The buildings
have cost about £20,000. The library at the Institution comprises
three or four different collections, among which is the Pitt Library
(spoken of below), and contains over 20,000 volumes. In the Institu-
tion are located a school of art in connection with South Kensington,
occupying a suite of rooms specially built for the purpose; a school of
science and engineering, occupying a similar set of buildings; a junior
medical school ; a department of general literature ; and ]arge chemical
and physical laboratories. There is a staff of lecturers and teachers
attached to the Institution. The fees for day students vary from #15
to £24 per annum, and there are evening classes during the winter
months, which are open to artisans and others at small fees. The
students have gained many distinctions and appointments in various
Government services, including the public works and telegraphic de-
partments of India, the Woolwich and line examinations, the Control
departments, &c., and have won many open scholarships and similar dis-
tinctions at the universities, the Royal School of Mines, and elsewhere ;
and during the year 1881-82, 340 students, day and evening, attended
the classes.!

 

1 Mr, Shore’s Guide.
THE ORDNANCE SURVEY OFFICE. 131

 

The Institution is governed by a council, which consists of the mayor,
nine members of the town council, and six who are not members of the
town council. The executive officer is Thomas W. Shore, Esq., F.G.S.,
F.C.S., under whose care the work of the Institution is being largely
developed.

SecTion X.—TZhe Ordnance Survey Office.

At the beginning of the century the Government erected on a site
of about two acres of land near the entrance to the Avenue some
cavalry barracks, with all the usual appliances. In 1816 the use of
these buildings was converted into a military asylum for boys, serving as
a branch of the Royal Military Asylum at Chelsea. It was superin-
tended by a commandant, chaplain, adjutant, surgeon, and other neces-
sary officers; and at one time contained from three to four hundred
boys, who were well fed and taught, and patronised by great folk from
time to time. In May 1823 they were all removed to Chelsea, and the
asylum was used for female children. These, like the boys, were to be
orphans of both parents, or daughters of fathers who were serving in
the regular army abroad, the mothers being dead: they were clothed,
fed, and taught, and put to service. About 1840 these children were also
removed to Chelsea, and the destination of the buildings and site
became for a third time altered.

The Ordnance Survey ‘Office was established at Southampton on
this old site, and partly in the old premises, in 1841. In 1855 an
extensive new wing was added, and in 1873 the old main building was
pulled down. The whole of the premises have now been remodelled
and greatly enlarged.

This office is the headquarters of the Ordnance Survey of the
United Kingdom, the work of which is carried on by four companies
of the Royal Engineers, in addition to a staff of upwards of 2000
civilians. Of this force, about 500 are employed here; consisting of all
the necessary artists, clerks, and mechanics, under a director, assisted
by an executive officer and officers in charge of departments.

A full account of the work of this department was presented by
Major-General Cooke, C.B., R.E., at the visit of the British Association
in August 1881. |

There is an observatory on the premises, the register of which com-
mences with the year 1855: the observations are constantly published
in the local papers.

From this office parties of the Roval Engineers were sent on the
survey of Jerusalem and Sinai, which has had such interesting results.
‘sion,

CHAPTER IV.
MUNICIPAL.
Section ]_—Zhe Guild Merchant.

Tue Guild Merchant having been the nurse of the town’s corporation
and the original guardian of its liberties, it seems right to put in the
front such account of the Guild as we are able to give. This will be
best done by exhibiting its ordinances at length, of which, however,
and of the versions extant, some account must be also given.

1. The carliest version of the ordinances of the Guild Merchant is to
be found in an ancient and curious volume, which is one of the most
interesting of the town records. It is a small quarto on vellum, bound
in oak covers, one being much longer than the other, and having a
square hole in the lower part to put the hand through while using the
volume. On the outside are a couple of merchants’ marks.1

The ordinances commence at the top of folio 10, and are written
continuously without any break to the fifth line of folio 20, the heading
of each being in rubric. The handwriting is apparently that of the
first part of the fourteenth century. Prefixed to the ordinances, on
folio 9, is the guildsman’s or burgess’s oath, in which mention is made
of a mayor, a title which does not occur in the ordinances themselves.
The oath, which is in rubric and ina larger hand than the rest, appears
to be of the same age. The ordinances are of various dates, some of
them probably belonging to the earliest period of the Guild The trans-
Jation of this oldest version is given below.?

2. The next is a version called the ‘ Paxbread.’_ It is a free transla-
tion from the Anglo-Norman ordinances, with certain omissions, made
by W. Overey, town-clerk, 1473. It commences :—‘ Heare after folo

 

1 This book was noticed by the late Mr. Thomas Wright in Winchester
volume, Brit. Archzeol. Assoc., 1846, where also is a drawing of the covers by
Mr. Fairholt. A table of contents is to be found in the Record Commissioners’
Report, 1834.

2 Dr, Speed transcribed the text and gave a translation, which has been
consulted in that given below. The Anglo-Noiman text, here excluded from want
of space, was edited by Sir Edward Smirke, but without translation, and is to be
found printed in the Archeological Journal, vol. xvi, 1859, pp. 283-296.
THE GUILD MERCHANT. I

Go
Oo

 

[w]ithe the contynue of a boke named the paxbreade . . . [be]inge
the olde rules and ordinaun[ces] of the good t[own] of Suthampton
made by greate [deli]beracon b[y] the awncyent fathers in time passed
[for] the utilitie and comon welthe as well f[or th]e burgeasses and
bretheren of the gilde as of a[ll the] dwellers and inhabitantes within
the franchis and liberties of the saide towne: the which auncient fathers
made the saide booke of olde tyme in Frenche tonge, and the first sadd
and good rule to be had and settled amounge them, and so for to conteyne
in the same unto the worldes end: and seth by William Overey, sonne
and heire unto William Overey sometyme mayer of the saide towne,
translated out of Frenche into Englishe, he beinge burgesse succeedinge
his saide father’s burgeswicke by inheritaunce, and by free election
afterwarde chosen clerke and made shreve of the said towne the yere of
grace m'cccclxxiij [12 Ed. IV.] the xv daye of September: which trans-
lacion so made was fully compiled and finished the saide yere by the
saide William Owrey the yonger, and after by him geuen and pre-
sented unto the maior at that time being and to his bretheren, burgesses
of the saide gilde, with all the inhabitantes of the same, the yere
of grace m'cccclxxviij (1478). The town copy now existing is not
the original, but was written after the beginning of the reign of
Henry VIII.

No account is hazarded of the name ‘ Paxbread’! by which the
ordinances had come to be known.?

Overey’s work contains :—1. The burgesses’ oath, substantially the
same as that printed below ;? 2. Translation of the French ordinances;
3. The oaths of all the officers of the town. (1.) The mayor’s oath is a
more ancient form of that given below; in it occurs ‘ ye shall see to
be donne all the pointes of the paxbreade, and of ij bookes called the
booke of certentes of office, and of a booke [of] casualties late ordayned

 

1 Constant references occur to chapters in the ‘ Paxbread,’e9., in 1522
James Pryvett was ‘ discharged from the liberty of the guild’ for making a fray
on one of the burgesses with a dagger, ‘contrary to the lawdable custom of the
town, as in the 13th chapter of paxbread doth appear’ (Burgess Book).

2 Nor can I explain the following extraordinary entry :—

‘Paxbrede: M4 that John a Side solemply sworne uppon a booke the xvij
yere of Kynge Harry the vij™ the xvij® day of March [1502], hath confessed
that he hath the copy of the paxbrede of this Towne which he hadd of Thomas
Stanwey, sumtyme servaunt to Jamys Meryke; over that he is sworne to se
the same copy delyvered, the same self copy: and also he is sworne that he nor
othir person for hym shall take any copy of the same. And the vij day of
March a° Regis H. vij xviij®, according to the othe aboue wretyn he hath
brought in the same booke, and it was brent before hym’ (Lib. Remembranc,
H, f 8).

3 See the oaths printed under the offices.
134 THE GUILD MERCHANT.

 

for the welthe of this town by Thomas Overay} then mayor’ [1488-go],
&c.; (2.) Oath of the four aldermen; (3.) Of the sheriff; (4.) Of the
recorder or town-clerk ; (5.) Of the bailiff of the courts ; (6.) the water-
bailey and of the broker ; (7.) Of the water-bailey and his clerk ; (8.) Of
the steward ; (9.) Of the four sergeants; (10.) Of the crowners ; (11.) Of
the constables; (12.) Of the bidelles ; (13.) Of a prisoner when liberated.

3. The third version occurs in the second part of the volume last
mentioned. It contains the following oaths:—r. Of the burgesses ;
2. Of the commoners; 3. The mayor; 4. The four aldermen and
justices ; 5. Constables of staple ; 6. Recorder or town-clerk ; 7. Sheriff ;
8. Bailiff; 9. Coroner; 10. Constable; 11. Petty customer; 12. The
four discreets of the market; 13. The four sergeants; 14. The receiver
of customs; 15. Brokers between merchants; 16. Cloth-measurers ;
17. The steward; 18. Measurers of salt and corn; 19. Teller of leather ;
20. Alderman of Portswood; 21. The bidelles. The ordinances which
follow are considerably modernised and enlarged,” and are the same as
in No. 5 (below).

4. The fourth version in the order of time is found in the ‘ Burgess
Book’ of 1496. It presents the same list of oaths as the last, and
contains in the margin some additions which appear in the later texts.
Opposite the commoner’s oath a note about the Protector is obliterated.
After the ordinances, which have nearly assumed their most modern
shape, comes a new batch of oaths. That of the recorder was new, and
‘the right wo. Mr. Thomas Fleminge, her Majesty’s Sollicitor General,
was, the vij daye of April 1601,’ sworn upon it; then the oath of non-
burgesses, written after 4 Jas. I., subsequently altered to serve for the
Protector, and again altered; the oath of the justices; of the assistants
or common councillors; and of the gauger.

5. A version? written in the time of Charles I., from which a few
footnotes are given below. It contains the same oaths as version 3,

 

1 The ordinances of Thomas Overey consist of thirty-two articles of minute
regulation for the town officers, and for enforcing the points of the Paxbread
and for trade rule. ‘ Thees been the remedies provided and ordeyned by Thomas
Overy, mere, &c., for divers grevous compleyntis, &c. And if these said reme-
dyes, provisions, and ordinaunces shuld not be put in execucion and contynue,
hit shuld be to thutter distruccion of this seid gode towne, the whiche God
defende.’ They were passed by the Common Assembly, July 1, 1491 (Lib.
Remembranc, BB., ff.5, 6-9). Article 20 provides that the old ordinances
granted to various crafts should be still observed, Article 24, strangers coming
to the town were to be assigned by the mayor, ‘to be hosted and lodged with
sufficient burgesses dwelling within the same town,’

? It had been intended to give a collation of these books, but space has failed
utterly,

3 This book was in the possession of Dr. Speed.
THE GUILD MERCHANT. 135

 

with the additions of version 4. The ordinances are considerably
modernised (as in version 3), the word ‘burgess’ always appearing
instead of ‘guildsman.’ The following are the chief additions :—
Ordinance 17. Forbidding innkeepers to receive the merchandise of
strangers into their houses; 63. Forbidding the purchase of articles on
shipboard under the Isle of Wight, except through a broker; 64. An
order about the watch, about 1521; 65, 71, 72, 73. Orders about beer-
brewers (c. 1550); 66. The town steward to put in sureties; 67.
Butchers above Bar not to retail meat there, but to sell at the Friar’s
gate with the other butchers ; 68. The measure of Newfoundland fish ;
69. Prohibiting the sale of salt by water measure; 70. Payment for
the use of the crane for great timber, and 79 for millstones; 74.
Regulation for butchers; 75. Cows not to be milked in the town; 76.
Beer-brewers not to have iron-bound carts; 77. Masty dogs not to run
about the streets; 78. Regulating shoemakers and cobblers; 80. Tin
dealers to carry their tin to the tin-house and pay the porters.

6. The book of ‘ oaths of office? now in use. It was commenced
by Richard Stanley, town-clerk, 1648-53. The ordinances in this copy
present many slight variations from those in the last, but are substan-
tially the same. Ordinance 69 is omitted. There are these additions :—
80. None to be sworn burgesses but such as are free of the Corporation
by birth or service, without consent of the majority of the Corporation ;
81. No one to be chosen mayor, sheriff, or bailiff who has not been
high steward; 82. Costs of Admiralty courts at Leape, Lymington,
and Keyhaven limited to £8, and at Hamble to forty shillings; 83.
Officers in the customs are to have no government in the town; 84.
No burgess who has not been resident a year and a day is to have any
voice in the election of mayor, &c., unless he be the recorder, or has
been a burgess of parliament for the town; 85. Order of precedence
among the burgesses ; 86. Strangers’ goods to be weighed at the king’s
beam; 87. Apprentices of burgesses and franchisers, term to be for
seven years at least, according to the statute ;1 enrolment to be made
within six months in the Audit-house book; 88. No one to set up a
shop without licence unless he has been apprenticed in the town for
seven years; 89. No craftsmen dwelling in the town or franchise to
take into employ any men-servants other than denizens and those
bound apprentice; go. The manner of surveying the town lands, &c.
‘Item, that the mayor and aldermen of the wardes shall make true
_. 2 here three leaves are cut out, and so Mr. Stanley’s ordinances
come to anend. There is little variation in the oaths of this collection.
A marginal note against the burgesses’ oath states that by order of

 

1 See 5 Eliz. c. 4, 8. 24 (1562-63), and 7 Jas, I. c. 3, s. 2 (1609-10).
d
nances
late
town.

cers.

136 THE GUILD MERCHANT.

 

Common Council, February 1769, the clause about apprentices is to be
omitted. Under the mayor’s oath a later hand gives directions as to
his swearing, and how he is to be invested with the tippet by the
recorder and the late mayor or next senior alderman.

We now turn to the significance of what we find. We have before
us the history of the borough constitution, as far as it is contained in
these ordinances, from about 1300 to the period when the Corporation
had assumed that shape in which the Municipal Reform Act found it
in September 1835.

The first thing to remark is that the old ordinances profess to
regulate both the Guild Merchant and the town. It is evident, there-
fore, that at the period of the earliest laws the borough government
had merged its identity in that of the Guild.

The alderman (Ordinance 1) was the usual title of the head of a
guild; the seneschal or steward, chaplain, echevins, and usher were
officers also of the Guild; but some of them had at this period functions
which were clearly beyond those of the original Guild Merchant. This
latter was an association for the protection and promotion of trade of
whatever kind; hence, after it had assumed full governing power in
the towns—for the history of one town is that of many—we find it in
connection with the various craft guilds, approving their ordinances,
receiving money .considerations from them, and supervising in many
ways. To this guild character of the governing body the general
power of trade regulation belonged, as also that of the appointment of
burgesses and their succession by inheritance.

At the period of these French ordinances (c. 1300), which, be it
remembered, certainly represent a much older date, nothing remained
beyond the sign or tradition of the two jurisdictions having been sepa-
rate, so completely had the Guild dominated over the old borough idea.
But whenever the Guild became settled as the supreme authority—and
it may have been from its first existence by charter (probably in the
time of Henry I.)—there entered at that period an element of restric-
tion alien from the more ancient government of the towns, The
privileges of the borough communities were shared by all the free, that
is, unservile town-dwellers who bore their part in the public burdens ;
but with the Guild the privileges became restricted to the few, and a
system of local administration arose which fills us with amazement in
reading medieval or much more recent history. Yet, in a larger view,
the exclusiveness of the guild system was a necessary step towards
the freedom of the country; for it is observed? that the vindication
of class privileges is one of the most effective ways of securing public

 

! Stubbs, Constit, Iist., ii, 562.
THE GUILD MERCHANT. 137

 

liberty so long as public liberty is under the general oppression of
tyranny.

The alderman or chief alderman of the town—z.e., the alderman Alderman.
(originally) of the Guild Merchant, as distinguished from those of the
wards—is the head of the Guild and of the town (Ord. 53). With him
are joined two bailiffs (27, 29, 32, &c.), and twelve sworn men of the Bailiffs
town from the class of prodeshommes or ‘discreets,’ and called so
themselves par excellence (18, 27, 29, 32, 44). They were afterwards
styled the ‘twelve assistants.’ These twelve discreets were to be Twelve

: ee : discreets,
elected each year by the whole community, the two bailiffs being elected
the same day from the same class of prodeshommes (32). Besides
these officers, there were four sworn men discreets of the market (31), Discreets
and twelve aldermen of wards, who had the view of frankpledge in ae
their wards, and controlled the police and sanitary regulations of the % ¥"“s
town (37, 38, 45, 46, &c.) The seneschal or steward acted as treasurer Steward.
under the direction of the chief alderman (8, 35), and the four ‘ ska- Echevins,
vyns’ (1, 2, 3, &c.)—as the word was usually written and pronounced—
probably served him in a subordinate capacity. The usher gave warn- Usher.
ing of town meetings, and was perhaps the mouthpiece of the Guild in
proclamations.

The Guild did not always meet in the same place (4, 32), perhaps in Meetings.
this respect preserving the old tradition of the Guild Merchant, which
was not even confined to town-dwellers. The Guild meeting was to be
held twice! in the year—the Sunday next after St. John Baptist’s Day
(June 24) and that after St. Hilary, January 13 (1). There is no men- a
tion of a guildhall.

Passing now from the officials to the general town community, the The
most important personage is the guildsman or lurgess, for the burgess are
no longer means the free resident householder, paying his scot and
bearing lot, sworn and enrolled in the court of the borough. The
word has obtained a more restricted meaning, which became bound to
it only the more tightly till in the Act of 1835 it was liberated and
restored to something more like its original. The guildsman or burgess
was a member of the body which held the government of the town; he
had the fullest municipal rights, and the first enjoyment of every privi-
lege; his place in the Guild had either been inherited or purchased by
fine (9, 10, &c.), on his satisfying otherwise the necessary requirements,
one of which was residence ; for the Guild Merchant having been now
long time strictly localised, it had adopted the old tradition, so far, of

 

1 These were solemn no less than festive gatherings. At them the ordi-
nances were carefully read over and explained. Thomas Overey’s ordinances
make this clear.
138 THE GUILD MERCHANT.

 

‘town-dwelling being essential to the exercise of town functions and the
enjoyment of town privileges. The only exception to this requirement
was in the case of those whom the Guild delighted to honour or whose
favour it hoped to secure by the compliment of honorary membership
(57): the guildsman could not give away or barter his place (10),
After the guildsman comes the man of the franchise (12, 13, 14, &c.),
that is, the dweller within the liberties of the town who bore his part
in duties and taxation, and who was admitted to trade by the enabling
and essential permission of the Guild. A guildsman might lose his
place in the Guild, or even forfeit his franchise (12, 65, &c.); and the
rival of franchiser might of course be deprived of his rights, when he would be
counted as a stranger (75, &c.)
The stranger or foreigner was not necessarily, or indeed generally,
a foreign subject, but one who did not live within the town liberties:
such a person was made to understand that his frequenting the markets
and his very presence within the town were matters of sufferance (23, &c.)
n of Ordinance 30 shows us how to interpret ‘man of the town ;’ it is
‘wn. evidently a comprehensive term including both the guildsman and the
franchiser. So the expression ‘ordinances of the guild and of the
town’ (44, 45) refers to the one code which regulates the whole com-
munity, and does not imply two bodies, one having reference to com-
merce, the other to local government, though the phrase may preserve
the tradition of separate jurisdiction. This hint of a former state of
affairs is perhaps more distinctly involved in No. 53.

It was in comparatively recent times that the name of Guild was
finally given up. At the period of the French ordinances it was pro-
minent, and so continued for a couple of centuries or more. The
entries in the ‘Burgess Book’ of 1496 record admissions ‘into the
gilde’ or into ‘the libertie of the gilde.’ One or other of these forms
occurs without a variation til] the admission of Bishop Horne in 1562,
whose name is the last thus entered. After this there is a marked
change in the style. The next and most of the subsequent admissions
are ‘to be one of the burgesses,’ or, in the latest times till 1835, ‘admitted
and sworn a burgess.? Still in 1597 we find an admission ‘to be one
of the burgesses and guilde ;’ and the same or similar form of ‘ guild
and burgess’ occurs not unfrequently till 1704; after which the name
does not appear in documents, and only remains in the word guildhall.

Following upon the distinction between ‘the guildsman’ and ‘ man
of the franchise,’ the latter enjoying special liberties from the Guild
without all the privileges of the guildsman, we find in the volume

men, Called ‘ List of Burgesses from 1697’ an ‘admission of freemen,’ to-
wards the end, the first entry being dated October 5, 1694. These
were admissions of tradesmen to trade in the town, and of townsmen

chiser,

nger,
THE GUILD MERCHANT. 139

 

to succeed to freedom on completion of their apprenticeship, the latter
being admitted gratis. The forms are ‘admitted and sworn a free-
man of this town to use the trade of,’ &c., ‘ having served an appren-
ticeship within the town, is admitted and sworn a freeman of the town
to use the trade of,’ &c. The list is not quite chronological, and a
meagre enrolment compared with the list of burgesses. It may not
have been complete. The last entry seems to belong to 1796.

THE ORDINANCES OF THE GUILD MERCHANT,

1, How the alderman, seneschal, chaplain, echevins, and usher shall be
elected,—First, let there be elected and established for the Guild Merchant an
alderman,! a seneschal, a chaplain, four echevins,? and an usher. And be it
known that the alderman shall receive from every one entering into the Guild
fourpence, the seneschal twopence, the chaplain twopence, and the usher
one penny. And the Guild shall be held twice in the year, that is to say, on the
Sunday next after St, John Baptist’s Day, and the Sunday next after St. Hilary.

2. During the time of the Guild none shall come among them except through
the alderman,—And during the Guild no one belonging to it shall introduce any
stranger except by order of the alderman or seneschal. And the alderman shall
have a sergeant? to serve before him, the seneschal another sergeant, and the
two echevins a sergeant, and the other two echevins a sergeant, and the chaplain
shall have his clerk.

3. What the alderman shall have each night as long as the Guild shall be held.
—And during the Guild the alderman shall have each night of its session two
gallons of wine and two candles, and the seneschal the same; and the four
eschevins and the chaplain, each of them one gallon of wine and one candle;
and the usher, one gallon of wine.

4. What the lepers shall have during the Guild—And during the Guild the
lepers (les meseaus) of La Maudaleyne shall have of the alms of the Guild two
cesters* of ale; and the sick of God’s House and St. Julien, two cesters of ale;
and the Friar’s minor, two of ale and one of wine ; and four cesters of ale shall
be given to the poor where the Guild shall be held (la ou la gilde serra).

5. No gutldsman shall go forth from the town during the session of the Guild,

 

1 The mayor of the town continued very commonly to be called ‘the alder-
man’ in deeds and other documents till towards the middle of the fourteenth
century.

2 Eskevyns. The following, from ‘ English Guilds,’ Early Eng, Text Soc.,
1870, will be of use :—‘An aldirman, wyse and wittye, able and konyng to reulen
and gouern pe company . . . and four skeuaynes, trost men and trewe, for to
kepyn and reseyuen pe goodes and pe katel [chattels] of pe gilde’ (p. 46).

3 A servyer devaunt ly. It probably means to execute orders : compare the
Winchester ‘ Usages’ (English Guilds, p. 350); ‘Also fowre seriauntes sholde
be in pe town y-swore, 3erdes [maces] berynge, for to don pe hestes of pe mayre
and of pe baylyues.’

4 Cesters. Dr. Speed takes it for setier or septier, which he makes a liquid
measure of eight pints or one gallon
140 THE GUILD MERCHANT.

 

—And while the Guild is sitting, no member of it shall go forth from the town
for business without the leave of the seneschal, If any one does so, he shall be
fined two shillings, and pay them. .

6. How two guildsmen shall visit the sick of the Guild, and what each approved
mani ( prodeshome) shall have,—And during the Guild if any guildsman be out
of the town, so that he did not know when the Guild would take place, he shall
have a gallon of wine, if his servants come for it; and if a guildsman be ill and
in the town, wine shall be taken to him, two loaves and a gallon of wine, and
one dish of cooked food ;2 and two of the approved men (prodeshomes) of the
Guild shall go to visit him and look to his condition.

7. When a guildsman dies,3 those who are of the Guild busy themselves, like-
wise all who are of the Guild andin the town shall be at the service of the dead,
—[Words repeated] and guildsmen shall carry the body, and bring it to the
place of sepulture. And he who will not do this shall pay, on his oath, two
shillings to give to the poor, And those of the ward where the dead man shall
be shall find a man to watch with the body the night that the dead person shall
lie in his house. And so long as the service of the dead shall last, that is to say,
the vigil and the mass, there shall burn four wax tapers of the Guild, each taper
of two pounds or more, until the body be buried, And these four tapers shall re-
main in the keeping of the seneschal,

8. The seneschal shall keep the rolls and the treasure of the guild under
seal,—_[ Words repeated] of the alderman of the Guild,

9. How the next heir of a deceased guildsman shali have the seat of his
Jather.—And when a guildsman dies, his eldest-born son or his next heir shall
have the seat of his father, or of his uncle if his father was not a guildsman,
but of no other relation, and shall give nothing for his seat. But no husband
(baron) by reason of his wife can have a seat in the Guild, nor demand it by any

right of his wife’s ancestors,

10, No one has the right or power of [selling or] giving away his seat in the
Guild,—[Substance repeated] and the son of a guildsman, other than his eldest,
shall be admitted to the Guild on payment of ten shillings, and shall take

the oath.

11, [fa guildsman be in prison in any place in England*—I[ Words repeated |
during a time of peace, the alderman with the seneschal and one of the echevins
shall go at the cost of the Guild to procure (porchacer) his deliverance,

 

1 Prodeshomes. An understood and restricted class of the men of better
standing, from whom the officials were chosen (see Gloss. to Lib, Custumarum,
p. 753). This word is always rendered by ‘discreets’ in the more modern
English versions of these ordinances,

2 Mes de la cusyne, ‘A messe of the kichene’ (Overey),

’ This ordinance is omitted in Overey’s version, 1473; but its equivalent
appears as cap, 2 in later versions, where the mayor and his brethren are charged
with this duty under two shillings’ penalty,

4 Modern version (No. 5), ‘By reason of the affairs of the town,’
THE GUILD MERCHANT. 141

 

12, [fany [ guildsman] strike another with his fist, and be thereof attainted,
he shall lose his guildship until,—[ Words repeated | he has purchased it again
for ten shillings, and shall take the oath like anew member. And if a guilds-
man strike another with a stick or a knife, or any other weapon of whatever kind,
he shall lose his guildship and his franchise, and shall be held a stranger until
he be reconciled to the good men of the Guild and have made recompense to the
person whom he has injured, and be fined to the Guild twenty shillings, which
shall not be remitted.

13. Jf any stranger strike a guildsman, and be of the franchise, or offend,—
[Substance repeated] and be reasonably attainted, he shall lose his franchise and
go to prison for a day and a night,

14. If any one who is neither of the Guild nor of the franchise strike a guilds-
man.—[Substance repeated] and be thereof reasonably attainted, he shall be
imprisoned two days and two nights, if the offence be [not] such as to deserve
graver punishment.!

15. Lf a guildsman revile or asperse another guildsman and complaint be
made of it,—[Words repeated] to the alderman, and he be reasonably attainted
thereof, he shall pay two shillings fine to the Guild; and if he cannot pay he shall
lose his guildship,

16. That no one of the franchise, or any other, come to speak or do evil
against a guildsman ; and if he do this and be attainted—[Substance repeated]
before the alderman, he shall give a fine of five shillings or lose the franchise.

17, And no one shall come to the council of the guildsmen unless he be a
guildsman,—[Sentence repeated. ]

18. Lf any one of the guild forfeit his guildship by any act or trespass, and
be excluded.—[Words repeated] by the alderman, seneschal, echevins, and the
twelve sworn? men of the town, and would have it again, he shall do all afresh,
just as one who had never been of the Guild, and shall make amends for his
trespass at the discretion of the alderman and the discreets (prodeshomes)
aforesaid. And if any one of the Guild or of the franchise sue another out of the
town, by writ or without writ, he shall lose the guildship and the franchise on
proof thereof,

19. No one shall buy anything [cn the town of Suthamtone] to sell again in
the same town, except he be a gutldsman.—[ Words repeated] or of the franchise.
And if any one do so and be attainted thereof, all that he has so bought shall be
forfeited to the king. And no one shall be quit of custom unless he have made
it clear that he is of the Guild or of the franchise, and this from year to year,

20. No one shall buy honey, seim,? salt herrings, oil, millstones,* or hides,

 

1 Si le trespas est tiel que il pende plus graunt punysement.’ Smirke sug-
gests that a negative has been omitted. The modern laws (No, 5) have ‘and to
have greater punishment according to his trespass.’

2 See under Ord, 27.

3 Fat, lard, &c., or fish-oil (see Ord. 75).

4 So the modern versions: the word is mwocles. In Ord. 71 occurs fourn de
moeles, a pair of millstones,
T42 THE GUILD MERCHANT.

 

except a guildsman,—[Words repeated] nor keep a tavern for wine, or sell cloth
by retail, except on market or fair day, nor keep above five quarters of corn in
his granary to sell by retail, if he be not a guildsman; and whoever shall do
this and be attainted shall forfeit all to the king.

21. Of ordering division (de partie maunder) in merchandise between guilas-
man and guildsman before—No one of the Guild shall be partner or joint
dealer in any of the foresaid merchandises with any person who is not of the
Guild, by any manner of coverture, art, contrivance, collusion, or any other manner.
And whosoever shall do this and be attainted, the goods so bought shall be for-
feited to the king, and the guildsman shall lose his guildship.

22, [fany gutldsman fall into poverty and have not wherewith to live.—
[Words repeated] and cannot work or provide for himself, he shall have one
mark from the Guild to relieve his condition when the Guild shall be held. No
one of the Guild or franchise shall avow another’s goods! for his own, by which
the custom of the town may be injured. And if any one do so, and he be
attainted, he shall lose the guildship and the franchise, and the merchandise so
avowed shall be forfeited to the king.

23. And no denizen or stranger shall [bargain for] or buy merchandise
[coming into the town] before a burgess.—| Repeated] of the Guild Merchant, so
long as the guildsman is present and desires to bargain for or buy those goods ;
and if any do, and be attainted, all that he has bought shall be forfeited to the
king.

24. How a guildsman? shall have a share in (departira) the merchandise,
which another guildsman buys.—And any one of the Guild Merchant shall share
(deit partir) in all merchandise which another guildsman or any other person shall
buy, if he comes and demands part, and is on the spot where the merchandise is
bought, so that he satisfy the seller and give security for his own part (quy il
soit en seur del seon). But no man who is not of the Guild can or ought to
claim share with a guildsman against his will.

25. The customs® and all other matters shall be paid without delay.—And if

any guildsman or other of the town refuse a part as aforesaid to a guildsman,
he shall neither buy nor sell in the town that year except victuals,

26. Ifa merchant of the town buy wine or corn and do not custom.—And if
any merchant of the town buy wine or corn, so that all the risk be on the buyer,

 

1 Evidently two ordinances run into one. As bearing on the latter part and
on Ord. 30, compare an order, January 6, 1563-64, complaining that the town
had suffered from strangers cellaring their goods within the town, and then, by
colour of their freedom elsewhere, or by sufferance of the townspeople, or by the
townsmen themselves, selling their goods to other strangers, without duty paid,
as freely as if they were burgesses or freemen of the town, Therefore, no burgess
or other inhabitant was to sell the goods of any not enfranchised, after it was
cellared, to any but burgesses or freemen (Boke of Remembrances, f, 94).

2 This and the following ordinances are omitted by Overey down to Ord. 30,
which is with him cap. 23.

3 The connection between rubric and chapter here is not apparent.
THE GUILD MERCHANT. 143

 

he shall pay no custom for those goods ; but if any part of the risk be on the
seller, he shall pay.

27. [No rubric,]—It is provided that the chief alderman of the town, with
the bailiffs and the twelve sworn men,! shall be watchful over the merchants, as
well strangers as denizens, as often as shall be required, to see that they have
sufficient security 2 for their debts and of the recognisance of their debtors; and
the day of the recognisance shall be enrolled before them, so that if that day be
not kept on the showing of the creditor, the debtor shall be immediately dis-
trained, according to his recognisance, in his lands or chattels, to make satisfac-
tion according to the usage of the town without any pleading, so that the towns-
men shall not suffer by default of payment of their debtors aforesaid.

28. And tf a guildsman will not suffer himself to be distrained for debt, or
[Jeing distrained shall break through, or make removal, or] break the king’s lock,
and be |thereof| attainted.—[Substance repeated] he shall lose his guildship
until he has bought it again for twenty shillings, and this each time that he
offends in such manner. And he shall not at all be the less distrained (et ja le
meyr3 ne seit distreint) until he has made satisfaction for the debt he owes ; and
if he will not submit to justice as aforesaid and be thereof attainted, he shall go
to prison for a day and a night like one who is against the peace; and if he will
not submit to justice, let the matter be laid before the king and his council in
manner aforesaid.

29. For the assise of bread and ale, let it be held rightfully in all points,—
And the chief alderman, and the twelve sworn men, or the bailiffs, each month,
or at least four times a year, [shall take care] that the assize of bread and ale be
well kept in all points according to the price of corn,

30. That no man of the town sell merchandise of a merchant [séranger]
bought under pretence,—[Substance repeated] whereby the merchandise would be
sold for more than the merchant could have sold it by his own hand, and so
the town’s people would lose their profit; but the merchants who bring their
goods for sale shall sell them by their own hand, And he who shall do this,
and be thereof attainted, shall lose his guildship, if he be a guildsman, and if he
be of the franchise, he shall lose his franchise until he has made amends to the
town for his offence.

31. That the market for fish and meat and pouliry® be held in all potnts.—
And every year, on the Morrow of St. Michael, shall be chosen two discreets who
shall be sworn to take care that the statutes made concerning the fish-market be

 

1 The existence of these ‘twelve sworn men’ (and in Ord. 18, 29, &c.) is
explained by Ord. 32, They were the ‘ assistants of the mayor’ in the modern
laws, The Winchester ‘Usages’ require that the mayor’s council shall consist
of four-and-twenty sworn men ‘of pe meste gode men and of pe wyseste of pe
town, for to treulyche helpe, and counseyle p forsaid meyr, to saue and susteyne
pe fraunchyse, &c.

2 See charter 40 H. III. No, 1 (1256).

3 The word is written feletrine, peletrice, which would mean feltry, woolfels,
sheep-skins with wool; but the context seems to require poletrie, oultry ; and
the modern laws have so taken it.
144 THE GUILD MERCHANT.

 

observed in all points, and they shall have the several points in writing, In like
manner there shall be two discreets elected and sworn to take care that the
statutes concerning meat and poultry be observed in all points. And these four
sworn men shall take care that the statutes concerning bread brought to market
from out of town be well observed : and if any do otherwise, notice shall be
given to the chief alderman and the bailiffs,

32. How twelve discreets shall be elected to maintain the king’s peace, and
how bailiffs, sergeants, &c.—Every year, on the Morrow of St. Michael, shall be
elected by the whole community of the town assembled in a place provided, to
“consider the estate and treat of the common business of the town—and then
shall be elected by the whole community, twelve discreets to execute the king’s
commands, together with the bailiffs, and to keep the peace and protect the
franchise, and to do and keep justice to all persons, as well poor as rich, denizens
or strangers, all that year ; and to this they shall be sworn in the form provided.
And these twelve discreets shall choose the same day two discreets from among
themselves and the other profitable and knowing men to be bailiffs for the
ensuing year, who shall take care that the customs be well paid: and they shall
receive their bailiwicks on the Morrow of St, Michael’s, as has been customary.
And this shall be done from year to year; so that the bailiffs shall be removed
every year, and the twelve aforesaid if occasion be. The same shall be done
with regard to the clerk and sergeants as to making and removing them.

33. That no bailiff give respite or take pledge for the custom, nor lend | give
credit for] the custom,—[Words repeated] due on anything that is to be carried
out of town; and if he do so, and be thereof attainted, the bailiff shall pay double
the sum for which he gave credit; and the bailiff shall be responsible for every-
thing that is customable on entry into the town, so that the town be no loser by
his default, if he would not answer for it by paying double.

34. Every entry of a ship and of customable goods [and every export from
the town] by sea shall be enrolled—[ Substance repeated] so that at the end of a
week the exports of the town may be known; and the chest of the customs shall
never be opened but in presence of the chief alderman and the twelve sworn
men, or six at the least; and then that amount of export [the custom] shall be
enrolled in a double roll, so that the chief alderman shall have one roll and the
bailiffs the other, and that amount shall be put into the common chest; so that
nothing shall be taken out or spent but in presence of the aforesaid alderman
and sworn men.

35. That the common chest be tn the house of the (chief | alderman or of the
seneschal,—|Repeated] and the three keys of it should be lodged with three
discreets of the aforesaid twelve sworn men, or with three of the echevins, who
shall loyally take care of the common seal, and the charters, and the treasure
of the town, and the standards, and other muniments of the town; and no letter
shall be sealed with the common seal nor any charter taken out of the common
chest but in the presence of six or twelve sworn men, and of the alderman and
seneschal; and no body shall sell by any kind of measure or weight that is not
sealed, under forfeiture of two shillings,

36. This is ordained that the bailiffs shall have nothing from any article
THE GUILD MERCHANT. 145

 

which belongs to the custom as of forfeiture,—[ Substance repeated] or from
the entering of corn, or for weighing; nor shall they have anything except
amercements, and presents, and firewood, that is to say, one [billet from every]?
cart of firewood from each carter who brings firewood to town for sale, and then
the carter shall have one penny for his wood,

37. Those who have committed offence against the alderman shall be amerced at
the award of the discreets ; and any one who is of the town and may have to be
amerced for any offence shall have his amercement taxed according to the offence,
and by award of the alderman of the ward of which he is,

38. Those who are summoned to the court of the king or to the assembly,—
[Repeated] to hear and execute the king’s commands, or for the common business
of the community of the town, and come not at the summons, and the summons
be witnessed to by a sworn sergeant, shall be amerced as often as they shall
offend in this sort, whoever they be, poor or rich, at the discretion of the alder-
man of their ward, and the fine shall be immediately levied [to the use] of the
town,

39. That no man harbour hay, oats, or other corn, after that these goods are
brought for sale.—{Repeated] into the market: if any one does, and he be
thereof attainted, he shall lose all that he has so harboured.

40. That no hired house which a merchant stranger has hired harbour
another's goods,—No merchant stranger who has hired a house or cellar in the
town may or can harbour any merchandise not his own in that house or cellar,
by any manner of pretext, by which the rents of houses belonging to the bur-
gesses of the town would be lessened ; and whoever shall do this, and be reason-
ably attainted, shall be heavily fined at the discretion of the town and according
to the offence.

41. That no butcher or cook sell other than nice-looking and clean food under
pain,—No butcher or cook shall sell to any man other than wholesome and
clean provisions, and well cooked: if any do, and he be thereof attainted, he
shall be put in the pillory for an hour of the day, or give two shillings to the
town for the offence,

42. That no butcher or cook throw into the street any filth or other matter.—
[Repeated] whereby the town or the street may become more dirty, filthy, or
corrupt ; and if any one do this and be attainted, he shall pay a fine of twelve
pence for every such offence in the manner aforesaid,

43. That no man have before his house muck or dung, or pigs going about,—
No man shall have any pigs going about in the street, nor have before his door
or in the street muck or dung beyond two nights; and if any one has, let who-
ever will take it away; and he who shall have acted contrary to this statute
shall be grievously fined,

 

1 Overey has ‘shides of wood,’ z¢., d¢//ets. Version No. 5, ‘A shide of
wood to the use of him that keepeth the Bargate, that is, to wit, of every cart-
full of wood that cometh to the town to be sold one shide of wood, except such
as be free,’

K
146 THE GUILD MERCHANT.

 

44. How the twelve sworn men shall be attentive in all points to the bailiffs
of the town,—The twelve sworn discreets shall swear that they will be helpful
and advising to the bailiffs of the town in all points to provide for the king’s
commands and to do justice indifferently, as well to poor as to rich, and to
support the bailiffs in all places according to right and the franchises and usages
of the town; and they shall be at every court, and shall come at the summons
of the bailiffs as often as they shall be summoned for hearing the king’s com-
mands or for giving judgment in court; and they shall keep secret and hold the
counsel of the town, and shall cause to be observed the statutes of the Guild and
of the town, uniformly with the chief alderman, the seneschal, and the echevins.

45. Of that which the aldermen and guardians of the streets of the town of
Suthamtone, &c,—The aldermen, guardians of the streets of the town, shall
swear loyally to keep the king’s peace, and to cause to be enrolled the names of
all who are in their ward, and once in every month at least shall go round to
see that the points and ordinances made for their ward be well kept; and if
they find anything in their ward that is against the ordinances of the Guild and
of the town, they shall give notice of it to the chief alderman and the bailiffs of
the town, and they shall not fail of this if they would enjoy the franchise of the
town.

46. Of two aldermen who shall keep the peace within the boundaries.—It is
provided, by common consent of the town, that from the North gate to the East
gate, and to the corner which belonged to Richard! de la Prise and the capital
messuage which belonged to John de la Bolehusse, on both sides of the street,
with all the parish of our Lady in East Street, there shall be two aldermen
elected as guardians to take care that the peace be well kept within the bound-
aries aforesaid, and they shall cause to be enrolled the names of all who are
dwelling in their ward, and they shall be bound in good security to keep the
king’s peace, and their sureties shall be enrolled ; and they shall take care that
no person stay in their ward beyond one night without giving such security as
before is said, if he desires to remain in the town, that the town may receive no
hurt or damage through him. And the two aldermen shall once in eight days,
or in fifteen days at least, go round their ward to see that nothing be done con-
trary to the form aforesaid within their ward. And if there be any offender in
the ward who will not submit to be attached, the sworn sergeants of the town
and the aldermen [of the ward], or the whole of their ward, shall go with all their
power and follow the malefactor until he be taken ; and if the aldermen do not
this, the town will cast the blame on them (la vile se prendra a eus).?

47. Concerning the watches of the town, let them be wisely appointed and

 

1 In a deed of John de Bynedon (mayor in 1286) mention is made of the
house which delonged to R. de la Prise, and in which Philip de la Prise afterwards
lived. The date of the deed is July 1299 (Madox, Form., p. 382). ‘‘ The corner
“of R. de la Prise is the corner of the Butcher Row which leads into French
“ Street, See Ord. 49.”

2 Overey has ‘all the ward shall go with their full power and sue the male-
factors till they be taken; and if the alderman will not do so, the town shall lay
the charge to the said alderman,’
THE GUILD MERCHANT. 147

 

kept in all particulars tn their —And the aldermen shall take care that the
watches of the town be well kept and prudently managed in their ward.

48. From the corner which belonged to Richard de la Prise unta New-town,
two aldermen tn all—From the corner which belonged to Richard de la Prise,
and the capital messuage (great house, chief mys) which belonged to John de la
Bolehouse, and unto the sea, together with Newtown Street,! there shall be two
aldermen in the form aforesaid.

49. For French Street to the sea two aldermen as ts aforesatd,—F or all French
Street, that is to say, from the corner which belonged to Richard de la Prise and
Henry Brya on the other side, and on both sides of the street to the sea, there
shall be two aldermen as is aforesaid.

50. For Symenelstrete to the castle there shall be two aldermen, — For
Simnel Street with the fish-market, and the whole of Bull Street with all
Wesheuthe (West Quay) to the castle, there shall be three aldermen as is before
provided,

51. Outside North-gate to Lubriestrete there shall be three aldermen,—Out-
side Northgate, on both sides of the street, with Fuleflode,? with the Strand and
Lubriestrete,? there shall be three aldermen in the form aforesaid,

52. That no fisherman sell fish which has come in a ship or great boat with-
out the alderman,—No fisherman for the future that brings fish to the town ina
ship or great boat shall unload or sell his fish before he has the bailiff’s leave ;
and he that does so, and is attainted, shall be grievously punished. And this must
be understood to extend to salted fish, The same is ordained for all other mer-
chandise.

53. That the alderman be chief? (cheveteyn) of the town and of the Guild in
[the] own (2.e., of the town).—The alderman is chief of the town and of the
Guild, and should principally be at pains and careful to maintain the franchise,
and the statutes of the Guild and of the town ; and shall have the first voice in
all elections and in all matters that concern the town and the Guild.

54. And of the bailiff, or other official of the town, offend and do not right.—
[Substance repeated] or if the bailiff of the town do not justice to denizens and
to strangers according to his oath, about which complaint be made, or if without
complaint the matter be notoriously and publicly known, the alderman shall call
together the seneschal, the echevins, and the sworn men of the town, and they
shall correct such offence, and do justice [lacking] by default of the bailiff.

55. The community may be assembled for business as often as necessary.—{ Sub-

 

1 “ Orchard Lane was formerly called Niewetone Lane and Niewetone Street.”

2 ¢¢ There are several orchards and gardens next the shore behind the George
“Inn which had probably houses belonging to them; if so, this place may be
‘the Full-flood mentioned. Lubrie Street seems to have some reference to
“¢ Lobery Mead at the north end of the town, and was probably the upper part
“of the street without the gate which leads to that mead, and is supposed to
‘¢ have had more houses in it formerly than at present,”

3 Later version (No. 5), ‘The mayor shall be the principal officer of the
town according to the grant, and shall be so reputed and taken, as he hath been
time out of mind,’ &c,
148 THE GUILD MERCHANT.

 

stance repeated] by the seneschal, either to execute the king’s commands, or for
extraordinary cause, or for the common business of the town.

56. In case of contention [arising] between burgesses in [the] town.—[ Repeated]
and complaint being made, those between whom the contention and strife have
arisen shall be sent for, and he who shall have committed the offence shall be
obliged quickly to make amends before the discreets, so that good peace and
unity may be kept among the discreets of the town. And if any one be refractory
and will not be ruled, he shall be dealt with according to the ordinances of the
town,

57. Lf any one, [not] an inhabitant in the town, be by the favour of the discreets
there admitted.—[ Repeated] into the Guild, his heir cannot in his father’s right enjoy
any benefit of that favour of the Guild.

58. Lf two men of the Guild bear witness [on oath] to an offence committed
against the statutes.—[Repeated] and contrary to the franchise of the town, their
testimony shall stand and be believed ; and if those who so bear witness be reason-
ably attainted of having borne witness falsely, those who have uttered such
testimony shall lose the guildship, according to the ordinances.

59. Vo broker shall bring any merchant, denizen or stranger.—[Repeated] to buy
any goods if the purchaser be not a sufficient man, and both willing and able fully
to pay and satisfy the seller, under pain aforesaid.

60. Vo broker shall store the merchandise of strange folk or their goods.—
[Repeated] on the penalty aforesaid ; and brokers are bound by their oath to
inform the alderman if a stranger buys and sells again within the town,

61. [Z/] any one [of the town] buys a shif-load.—[Repeated] of wine or corn in
the gross, and a burgess of the town desires to have a tun of wine or two or three
quarters of corn for his own use, he shall have it at the price for which it was
bought any time while the purchased goods remain in the seller’s hands.

62. [fany one of the town buy wine or other customable merchandise.—{ Repeated]
between Hurst and Langston, he shall pay the custom and prisage, if the goods be
purchased of a man liable to pay.

63. (Vo one shall [go out to meet a ship bringing wine] or other merchandise
coming to the town in order to [buy] anything.— [Substance repeated] before the
ship be arrived and come to anquor for unlading ; and if any one does so, and be
attainted, the merchandise which he shall have bought shall be forfeited to the
king.

64. Let no one sellany fresh fish, either in the market or street, but the man who
has caught it in the sea.—It is provided by common consent (par comon conseil)
of the Guild that no one shall sell any fresh fish either in the market or street, but
the person who has caught it in the water, or shall have bought it without
Calchesores (Calshot). And those who bring fish in a boat shall bring it all into

 

1 “Also no regratour ne go owt of towne for to engrosy pe chaffare, vpon
payne for to be fourty-dayes in pe kynges prysone’ (Winchester Usages). ‘And
that they forstalle no ffyssh by the wey, ner none other vittelle comynge to the
market of the cite, from eny straunge contrey, or fro the see’ (Worcester Ord.)
THE GUILD MERCHANT. 149

 

the market at once; and if they conceal any part of the fish in their boat, they shall
lose all; and if [the fisherman] delivers any part of the fish for sale by another
than himself, he shall lose all ; and if any huxter-woman bring fish to sell it again,
she shall lose all.

65. No one shall buy fish before sunrise or after sunset.—[Repeated] and if any
one do so, and be thereof attainted, if he be a guildsman he shall lose his guild-
ship, and if he be of the franchise, he shall lose his franchise and suffer imprison-
ment a day and a night.

66. No one from Millbrook or elsewhere shall bring fish | from] beyond [into ?}
the town of Suthamtone.\—[Substance repeated] without asking leave or without
paying custom ; and whoever does so, and is thereof attainted, the merchandise
so brought in shall be forfeited to the king.

67. No butcher or other person shall sell the hide upon a beast elsewhere than
zn the town.—[Repeated] and no one shall dress hides or dry skins if he be not a
guildsman. The same is to be observed of the hides of horses, pigs, and other
hides, and fresh skins of sheep, wethers, and goats.

68, Every person who brings bread in a cart to sell shall sell that bread by [his
own] hand.2—[ Repeated] and by no other, and if any [of such] bread be found in
the hand of other, it shall be lost.

69. Vo guildsman shall go on the water to meet fish coming to the town in
order to buy it, and [if] any one does so.—[Substance repeated] and buys it before
the ship has arrived and come to anquor, he shall lose his guildship. And if any
other who is not a guildsman be attainted of going to meet fish and buying it before
the ship has arrived and is at anquor, if he be of the franchise he shall go to prison
a day and a night ; and if a stranger who is not of the franchise does so, he shall
lose all that he has bought.

70. Vo regrator of kids, lambs, birds, geese, capons, and hens.—[Repeated]
chicken, or other kind of victual of cheese, fresh butter, eggs, shall buy any kind
of victuals to sell again before the hour of prime ® sounds, nor before the discreets
of the town and other free men of the country have bought their eatables. And
no regrator shall go out of the town to meet any victuals coming to town to buy
such ; and he who does so, and is thereof attainted, shall lose what he shall have
thus bought.

71. [tis provided concerning the porters of Suthamtone that they shall take.—
[Repeated] 14d. for lodging a cask of wine in cellars upon the sea-shore, and from
the shore in English Street to the lane that was Walter le Fleme[n]g’s, and in
French Street to the house where John de Wyte used to live, and from Westhithe

 

1 Overey has ‘shall bring fish zz¢o the town,’ which is no doubt the meaning.
The words are: ‘Nul ne meyne (in the body of the law ameyne) peisson outre
la vile de Hamtone.’

2 This odd law was perhaps to ensure the baker being traced should his
bread be bad; for the same reason he was to put his mark on each loaf (see
Winchester Usages, Eng. Guilds, p. 355, and comp. Stat. de Pistoribus (c. 1266),
which orders the baker’s mark on different kinds of bread.

3 That is, six o’clock A.M,
150 THE GUILD MERCHANT.

 

to the cellars which belonged to Sampson del Puytg (of the well), and to the king’s
castle, and to the capital messuage! of the Lady Cleremond (Dame Cleremonde),
where she used to live. Also for carrying a tun of wine on rope slings (poleins)
or hand-barrows (lotels) from the shore aforesaid to the church of St. Cross or St.
Michael’s, three pence ; and beyond those churches whenever they carry a cask of
wine to any other place in the town, four pence, &c. . . . And the porters aforesaid
shall do business for the burgesses of Hamtone before that of any stranger in all
points ; and if they do not, and offend in any point against the statutes aforesaid,
they shall be imprisoned for a day and a night without bail, and shall not bear the
office of porters for a year and a day.

72. There shall be no broker in the town of Suthamtone without being
appointed by the discreets.—[Repeated] and being sworn thereto at the office of
the brokers in the form provided, and finding good security to keep loyally his
oath aforesaid, &c.

73. [fany man perform the office of a broker without having been sworn to tt.
—[Repeated] no merchant, denizen or stranger, shall be obliged to pay him any-
thing, and he shall be forbidden the office, and he shall not intermeddle with it
by any means without leave of the alderman and the discreets of the town on
pain of imprisonment. And the brokers shall endeavour in all kinds of mer-
chandise, to the best of their power and on their oath, to advance the interests
of the burgesses of the town in all manner of purchases and sales before all other
merchants, in such manner that the profit of the burgesses of the town be made
before any strange merchant is provided with goods; and they shall not show,
or cause to be shown, or give notice to any strange merchant, of any kind of
merchandise before the burgesses of the town are provided with it, and have
refused or purchased [from] it.

74. No sworn broker shall be both merchant and broker.—| Repeated] nor keep
a tavern for wine, nor trade at all on his own account, nor go share or be partner
with any other merchant in any kind of merchandise ; and if any do so, and be
thereof attainted, he shall lose his broker’s place.

75. No burgess or other person shall buy or sell fundrible of seim,—I[ Substance
repeated] which is called ‘blobbe ;’ it is also ordered that ‘of every barrell the
head shall be smitten out at the low-water mark when the clear sayme shall be
drawn, and that the bottom be broke out because of corruption and divers other
damages that might come of it ;’? and if a guildsman does this, and any guilds-

 

1 This house, formerly belonging to the Prior ef Runceval, by gift of William,
Earl of Pembroke, in the time of Henry III., had been made over by the Prior
and Convent to the Lady Claremund at a rent of forty shillings a year, and after
her death William of Gloucester and Richard, his brother, had entered as her
heirs (Inquis. 8 Ed. I. 1279-80). The date of this part of the ordinance is
therefore probably early in the reign of Edward I.

2 This rendering is from Version No. 5. The words are: ‘e que de
chescun tonel seit feru hors le fun3 sus le grant mer de la mer, et ny passe pas
la floudmark, quant le cler seim serra hors tret, qil ne seit effonce pour corrup-
cion et pour autre gref damage que en porraavenir en la.’ Dr, Speed takes sez
to be train or fish oil ; /a73 (which he reads fizm3) “to be a corruption from fonce :
“ foncer signifies to head a cask ; defoncer and cffoncer, to beat out the head,”
THE GUILD MERCHANT. Let

 

man of the Guild bear witness to it, he shall lose the guildship ; and if one of the
franchise does it, he shall lose the franchise and be counted a stranger; and if
any other person does so, he shall go to prison a day and a night, and find
sureties who shall engage to make amends for his trespass at the award of the
alderman, the echevins, the seneschal, and the sworn men.

76. That guildsmen shall come at the hour of prime the morrow after the
Guild begins.—[Substance repeated] and he who comes not shall be fined six
pence, and pay immediately ; and if a guildsman comes not to the assembly in
the morning, and is in the town, he shall be fined two shillings, and pay without
remission,

77. Salt herrings (com arange sale y vient).—It is provided by common
consent of the Guild that salt herrings coming to the port of Suthamton, by ©
whomsoever brought, shall be sold in every ship at the highest price at first,
according as they intend to make their profit, so that after the first price is set
neither the master of the ship nor their hosts} (ne lour host3) shall increase the
price above the first sale; and whosoever does this, and thereof is attainted, all
that increased price shall be forfeited to the common profit of the town without
contradiction,

Such are the old Guild ordinances, which are clearly of various
dates. Some of them are probably declarations of the immemorial
constitution of the Guild Merchant; others are additions at a later
period. The law, or rather usage, more or less consistent with the
general law of the land, says Smirke, sanctioned very large and
arbitrary powers of local legislation in such fraternities and other
corporate bodies; powers exercised for purposes often mischievous,
generally selfish, and sometimes at variance with common right. It
was not until 1436-37 that this practice was restrained and put under
control by statute 15 Henry IV. cap. 6, which compelled the registra-
tion of charters, &c., and the approval of ordinances; still further
extended by 19 Henry VII. cap. 7 (1503-4), concerning private and
unlawful statutes.

Some comparison with the charters, a brief abstract of which
follows, might possibly be instituted with a view to date; at the same
time, it must be borne in mind that charters were frequently nothing
else than confirmations of privileges and customs which had really
been used long, very long, before the concession of such charters.

 

1 That is, the owners of the fish,
C154 1189.
[LOO-1135.
159.

A

June 26).
1199
(June 29).

152 THE CHARTERS.

 

Section I].—Zzhe Charters.

A notice! of the town charters from Henry II. to Charles I., whether
known through the originals or by inspeximus, is contained in the
present section.

1. The first is that of Henry II., known by inspeximus of several
kings :—

Henry, King of England, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Earl of Anjou,
to his reeves and ministers of Hamton, greeting: I ordain that my men of Han-
ton shall have and hold their guild and all their liberties and customs, by land
and by sea, in as good, peaceable, just, free, quiet, and honourable a manner as
they had the same better, more freely, and quietly in the time of King Henry, my
grandfather; and let no one upon this do them any injury or insult. Witness,
Richard de Humet, Constable, Joceline de Bailiol, at Winchester.

2. Charter of Richard I. (known by inspeximus), granting the
burgesses freedom ‘ from toll, passage, and pontage, both by land and
water, both in fairs and markets, and from all mercantile custom (de
omni seculari consuetudine) in all parts of the king’s dominions, both on
this and the other side of the sea.?. Warwick, Sept. 28 (1 R. I.)

3. King John repeated his brother’s grant: as the oldest extant
charter in the hands of the town, the text is given in full:—

‘Johannes, Dei gratid, Rex Angliz, dominus Hiberniz, dux Normanniz et
Aquitanize, comes Andegavize, archiepiscopis, episcopis, abbatibus, comitibus
baronibus, justiciariis, vicecomitibus, preepositis, et omnibus ballivis, et fidelibus
suis, salutem: Volumus et firmiter preecipimus et hic preesenti carta confirma-
mus quod Burgenses nostri de Suhampton sint quieti de theloneo et passagio et
pontagio, tam in terris quam in aquis, tam in feiris quam in mercatis, et de omni
seculari consuetudine, per omnes terras nostras citra mare et ultra, et per omnem
potestatem nostram, et prohibemus ne quis eos super hoc disturbet, aut injuram
ullam, molestiam, aut gravamen faciat, super forisfacturam nostram in hiis que
ad nostram pertinent potestatem. Testibus, W. Rothomagensi archiepiscopo,
E, Eliensi episcopo, Willelmo Marescallo comite de Penbroke, Willelmo filio
Radulfi senescallo Normanniz, Gavin de Glapion, Rogero constabulario Cestriz.,
Datum per manum H,. Cantiz archiepiscopi cancellarii nostri apud r[upem]
Andel[iaci] ? xxvj die Junii anno regni nostri primo.’

4. Three days later, as is known by inspeximus, he granted to the
burgesses ‘the town of Suthampton to farm for ever, with the port of
Portesmues, with all the appurtenances, liberties, and free customs, and
all other things which belonged to the farm of the said town in the
time of King Henry our father, to hold to farm of us and our heirs for

 

1 Dr. Speed has a lengthy abstract of most of the charters in Latin and
English, Space forbids more than the substitution of the following notice.

2 The scribe of the ‘ Book of Charters’ misread this word, and has supplied
over the fracture in the original charter the word ‘Aurmall.’ This Dr. Speed

has followed in his version, The real place was no doubt the Chateau Gaillard
in the Andelys.
THE CHARTERS. 153

 

ever, paying for it yearly into our exchequer on the Feast of St. Michael
£200 sterling. Wherefore we will, &c., that the foresaid burgesses
shall have and hold the aforesaid town, with the aforesaid port of
Portesmues, &c., for that farm. Aurivall, 2gth June (1 Jobn).

5. A confirmation by Henry III. (original) of the town at fee-farm,
together with the port of Portsmues. Date May 3 (11 Henry III.)

6. Charter of freedom from toll, as 1 Ric. I., &c. Dated as last,
May 3 (11 Hen. ITI.)

4. Charter (original) of freedom from the power of the Cinque Ports.
The barons of the Cinque Ports are enjoined to take no cark in the port
of Southampton and Portsmouth, nor execute attachment, or do them
injury contrary to their liberties and customs: ‘if ye do otherwise, we
shall not dissemble our displeasure, but shall levy the penalty on you
and your goods with severity.” Westm., 14th May (36 H. III.)

8. Charter (original) of freedom from arrest in their persons or
goods for any debt for which the burgesses are not either sureties or
principal debtors, unless it shall happen that the debtors be of their
body and have wherewithal to satisfy their debts in whole or in part,
and that the burgesses fail of doing justice to the creditors of the said
debtors. Bristol, 14th July (40 H. III)?

g. Charter (known by inspeximus) granting or confirming a
town court and the election of coroners: prohibition to sheriffs of
county, &c., to interfere. Burgesses not to beimpleaded out of their
borough for any tenements or chattels within the liberties. Dated as
last, Bristol, 14th July (40 H. III.)?

10. Charter of Edward II.4 (known by inspeximus) confirming

 

1 Charter Rolls, 11 H. III., p. 1, m. 7.

2 Dr. Speed explains this charter by a reference to the ordinances of the
Guild Merchant, where (Ord. 27) the Guild are required to lookinto the goodness
of the security offered for debts—as in statute merchant—and he suggests that
some person who had lost money by a debtor whose security had been allowed
by the Guild had sued the Guild for the debt, and that this charter was granted
to prevent such suits in future. The Municipal Corporations Commissioners
(1835) suggest that the charter might have reference to a custom which seems
to have once prevailed, by which a Corporation, a member of which had a claim
on a member of another Corporation, seized the goods of any freeman of the
latter found within the jurisdiction of the former ‘in Withernam,’ until the Cor-
poration to which the debtor belonged, or the debtor himself, made satisfaction.

3 By writ of November 11, 1226, the same king had prohibited the holding
of any court of pleas outside the town of Southampton and against its liberties,
touching tenements in the town, otherwise than courts used to be held there in
the times of Henry IJ., Richard 1, and John; any such causes were to be
removed from the county to the town, to be terminated there, as had been
accustomed (Close Roll).

4 Dr. Speed observes that there must have been a charter of Edward LI,
since he finds (Seymour’s Survey of London, ii. 154) that the town was seized
into the king’s hands, 18 Ed. L., for wounding a king’s bailiff while serving a

1227,

1227.

1252,

1256.

1317.
1327.

1383.

I40l,

1414.

154 THE CHARTERS.

 

former charters, and granting freedom from murages and pavages in
all parts of the kingdom. Westm., 28th March (10 Ed. IT.)

11. Charter of 1 Edward III. (known by exemplification of Westm.,
14 Ed. III. April 4, 1340, on account’ of the original being burnt)
granting immunity from loss of privilege on account of non-use; con-
firming 40H. III. Burgesses not to sue or be sued out of the borough ;
not to be put with strangers or strangers with them on juries about
land, &c.; such juries to be held in the borough by the burgesses them-
selves. Freedom from quayage in all parts of the kingdom. Westm.,
28th March (i Ed. III.)

12. Charter of Richard II. (original) inspecting and confirming
former charters, but making no new grant. Westm., 5th Nov.
(7 R. IL)

13. Charter of Henry IV. (known by inspeximus and Rot. Chart.
2H. IV. p.1, No. 7) confirming former charters. Granting town
court, cognisance of pleas, real, personal, and mixed, as well those held
by assize or certification as of all others whatsoever concerning lands,
&c., in the town and liberties, by land or sca: to be held in the Guild-
hall (Guyhalda). Confirmation of court leet. Grant of goods of
felons! from among the landholders or residents within the town and
liberties. Grant of fines on trespasses, and on purprestures by land or
water. Grant of all wastes. Appointment of justices (see below under
‘ Courts’) ; county justices not to interfere. Assize of bread, beer, and
other victuals; assay of weights and measures; and the exercise of all
duties belonging to the office of clerk of the market. Westm., 29th
Jans (@-E. TV.)P

14. Charter of confirmation by Henry V. (known by inspeximus
and Rot. Chart. 2 H. V. p. 2, No. 8),? with provision for immunity
against non-use. Westm., 30th Dec. (2 H. V.)

 

writ, after which the farm was increased by £20, This seems to be the circum-
stance detailed in Rot. Parl. i, 58 a, where no date is given; but is it not the
same as that referred to in the patent of 4 Edward I.? See above, p. 33.

1 Dr, Speed refers to the case of Peter James (Madox, F. B. p. 208), who
when late mayor in the first part of the reign of Henry VI., ‘‘ was sued in the
“* Court of Exchequer for £20, the value of the goods of an inhabitant of the town
““ convicted for felony, which he had seized. He pleaded this charter of 2 H.
“ IV., confirmed by 2 H. V. and 4H. VI. But the court notwithstanding ad-
“judged that he should be charged to the king with the said £20. The felon
“was indeed convicted out of the town, but the charter 2 H, IV. directs that
‘‘the mayor, &c., shall have the felon’s goods ‘ubicunque justicia de eo fieri
‘* debeat,’ wherever he shall be convicted. Perhaps the felony was committed
“ out of the town, which might alter the case.”

? Two grants are extant, dated respectively February 13 and February 12
(2 H. IV.), for the purchase of £100 a year, and for acquiring lands to that amount,

3 The Corporation possesses an exemplification of charters, dated 4th October
(4 H. IV.) 1416.
THE CHARTERS. I

on
on

 

15. Charter of confirmation by Henry VI. (original), made by
consent of Parliament, 1 H. VI., but dated Westm., 24th October
(4 H. VI.)

16. Charter of incorporation, 23 Henry VL, sets forth as usual the
heavy charges of the town from its being liable to the attacks of
enemies and from its large fee-farm: in consequence the town 1s now
‘ INCORPORATED for ever of one mayor, two bailiffs, and burgesses, to be
one community perpetual, incorporate in word and deed, by the name
of the MAYOR, BAILIFFS, AND BURGESSES ;’ to be fit in law to prosecute
all pleas, &c., to acquire and hold lands, &c. Provision for the
election of mayor and bailifls on the Friday before St. Matthew’s Day
each year, and in case of death, deposition, &c., within fifteen days after
such vacancy. Mayor to be escheator, and no other to interfere. Right
of imprisonment. Grant for further ease of the town, ‘and of the
port of Portsmouth, which port is within the liberty of the said town
of Southampton,’ that they shall be exempt for ever from obedience to
the constable, marshal, or admiral of England, or the steward, and
marshal, or clerk of the market, who shall by no means enter the town
to hold pleas, or hold pleas out of the town concerning matters within
the same. The mayor, &c., to be clerk of the market. Strangers
prohibited from buying of, or selling to, strangers. Grant of staple,
and election of mayor and two constables of the staple on the Friday
before the Feast of St. Matthew each year, with proviso as above in
case of death, &c. Election permitted of brokers, packers, porters,
carriers, &c., as in times past. May have goods of outlaws and persons
attainted within the town and its liberties. Freed from king’s pur-
veyors. Westm., 29th July (23 H. VI.)}

17, Charter of 25 Henry VI. (original) creating the county. The
merchants and mariners of the town being incommoded by the sheriff
of the county serving writs on them, this charter grants, in considera-
tion of the premises, and of the heavy fee-farm of 340 marks
(£226, 138. 4d.), ‘that our said town, with the port and precinct
thereof, and the port of Portsmouth,? which is now called the town of
Southampton and its precincts, shall be one entire county, incor-
porated in word and deed, separate and distinct from the county of

 

1 A writ is extant for not molesting the mayor, &c., and of fines granted by
charter, dated 3d February (20 H. VI.) 1442.

2 On the margin of this charter is written in a later hand, with recollections of
old controversies with Portsmouth: ‘ Note, how farre the countie of the town of
Suthampton doth strech ; and just below, ‘ The porte of Portismouthe is parte of
the countye and of the towne of Suthampton.’ The above charter provides
towards its close that ‘no prejudice, under pretence of this our grant, shall accrue
to the bailiffs, &c., of Portesmuth with regard to any privileges granted to or used
by them in times past.’

Lies:

1445.

Ports-
mouth,

1447.

Ports-
mouth,
I451,

1452,

1461,

156 THE CHARTERS.

 

Southampton for ever,’ and shall be called ‘ouR counTy OF THE
TOWN OF SouTHAMPTON.’ Sheriff to be chosen each year on the
Friday before St. Matthew’s Day, and certified by the mayor to the
barons of the Exchequer: in case of death, &c., a new one to be chosen
within ten days and certified as above. The sheriff to hold a county
court (see under ‘ Courts’). Burgesses not to be made assessors or col-
lectors of taxes out of the town. Westm., 9th March (25 H. VI.)

18. Charter of 30 Henry VI. in confirmation of former grants
(original). And further, mayor to have authority to perform all acts
which belong to the offices of steward and marshal of the household
and admiral of England within the town and precincts. Westm.,
12th Sept. (30 H. VI.)

In the following year, notwithstanding charters, a dispute having
occurred with the justices of the county, a writ was issued from the
king to John de Wyncestre and his colleagues, the justices appointed
to hear and determine concerning the offences of workmen and dyers
in the county of Southampton, setting forth a complaint of the
burgesses that whereas they had always enjoyed, and ought to have,
the power of assize of bread and beer, and the fines and amercements of
shoemakers, clothiers, dyers, and other artisans, as also of butchers,
fishmongers, salt merchants, regrators, and other victuallers, in aid of
their fee-farm of #200 per annum, the justices were intending to
levy such fines on pretence of their commission: the justices were
hereby warned that the contention of the burgesses had been main-
tained in the Parliament at Westminster; they were therefore
commanded not to molest the burgesses, but permit them to have all
those fines, as in times past, in aid of their farm. Westm., 12th Oct.
(3r H. VI.)3

1g. Charter of Edward IV. (original). In consideration of the
expenses of the mayor, &c., in the frequent defence of the town, which
is one of the most ancient in the kingdom, and has frequently shown
its loyalty to former kings, and ‘ particularly very lately to ourselves,’
former charters are confirmed and additional privileges stated to be
given. Appointment or confirmation of town court, pie powder court,
justices’ court, court leet (see under ‘Courts’). Exemption from serving
on juries, &c., out of the town. Resistance authorised against the
king’s officers, clerk of the market, or admiral attempting to carry out
any act of their office within the town or precincts. Westm., 16th
Dec. (1 Ed. IV.)?

 

1 Oak Book. Dr. Speed has given the document zz extenso. It is here very
considerably abridged.

® The cost of this charter is thus given in the Steward’s Book :—‘ Payd for con-
fyrmacyon of our newe Schartter by the honde of Richard Aysche, viiij! ix* Also
THE CHARTERS. 157

 

20, Charter of confirmation! (known by Inspeximus) of chart.
23 H. VI. ‘late king in fact but not by nght:’ no additional grant.
Date 12th June (8 Ed. IV).

21. Ratification (known by inspeximus) of charter 1 Ed. IV.
Westm., 20th August (20 Ed. IV.)

22. Charter of Richard III. (original) confirming Edward IV.’s con-
firmation of former charters. Westm., roth Dec. (2 R. III.)

23. Charter of Henry VII. (known by inspeximus of 2 Henry VIII.)
No date appears.”

24. Charter of confirmation by Henry VIII. (original). Westm.,
2d Oct. (2 Hen. VIII.)

25. Charter reciting and confirming (original) that of 8 Ed. IV.
Date Westm., 23d Nov. (6 H. VIII.)

26. Charter of Edward VI. (known by following exemplification)*
regulating and limiting the payment of the fee-farm thus :—When the
petty customs in any year shall amount to #200, or when any ships
called carracks of Genoa or galleys of Venice shall come to the port to
ship or unship cargo, the full fee-farm of £200 is to be paid; but
when the petty customs fall below £200, and when no such ships
make their appearance, the farm is to be but #50, rendered at the
Exchequer on the Feast of St. Michael the Archangel. And the king
remits arrears in consideration of the burdens borne by the mayor, &c.,
and of the present poverty, decay, and ruinous condition of the town
and inhabitants; as well on account of the repairs of the walls and
forts called ‘ bullwerkes, now in a ruinous state and demanding atten-
tion, as also on account of the town being a frontier lying on the sea-
coast towards Normandy, France, and other southern parts, and thus
properly situated to oppose foreign enemies, which the mayors, &c.,
have been always ready to do and will do in future. And the charter
directs that they shall certify to the barons of the Exchequer at least
before the fifteenth day after the Feast of St. Michael what the petty

 

payd for the fyne of the same by Rychard Aysche xl* and for the lace xx* Allso
payd for the wrytyng of the same Schartter llij* iiij¢: also for enrolling of the
same Schartter xl’. Summa iiij® xiij* iijj¢ Also payd toa manne for to seke up
dyverse of owre old Schartterys by Rychard Aysche x*’

1 The Steward’s Book of 1469 records a fine on a man for suing another out of
the franchise.

2 In 1501 (16 H. VII.) the bailiffs of the sheriff of the county (Hants) were
imprisoned for arresting a man within the town liberties. ‘ Item [received] of the
Shryf of Hamptonshire, John Philpot, for bycause his servaunts and baylifs
entered within oure ffranchise to arest a man, and were putt in prison, and so
remayned tyll the sayd Shryf came to this towne in propria persona and entreatid
the Towne, and for a knowlege of a fyne gave to the Towne x*’ (MS. Temp.
T. Overey, sub ann.)

3 The charter is enrolled, Pat. 6 Ed. VI. p. 6. m. 3, &c.

1468,

1480,

1484.

1510,

1514,

1552.
1553+

1616,

1640,

158 THE CHARTERS.

 

customs have been, and whether such ships have or have not come to
the port; and failing this, the whole £200 fee-farm shall be rendered.
Dated 4th April (6 Ed. VI.)

27. Exemplification of the foregoing (original), the town having
been charged with the full amount for the previous year, from which
they obtained release. Westm., 27th April (7 Ed. VI.)

28. Charter of Philip and Mary! (known by inspeximus of 14th
James I.): no date appears.

2g. Charter of Elizabeth (known as above): no date appears.

3o. Charter of confirmation (original). Date, 15th June (14
Jaines I.)

31. The last governing charter,’ of 16 Charles I. (original). The
heads are as follows :—The incorporation as in 23 H. VI.; election of
officers; in case of refusal to serve, others to be elected within twenty
days after the Feast of St. Matthew ; appointment of recorder, by that
name for the first time ; mayor given a casting vote in elections; de-
position of mayor provided for by recorder, aldermen, and common
council ; deposition of aldermen and bailiffs ; new officers to be chosen ;
mayor to be escheator as in 23 H. VI.; appointment of coroner as in
40 H. III.; the precincts ordered to be the same as before, and town
granted to farm for ever, together with the port of Portsmouth ; limita-
tion and release of the fee-farm as in 6 Ed. VI.; rate of petty customs
to remain as before; the town made a county, with sheriff and county
court, as in 25 H. VI.; a staple appointed, &c., as in 23 H. VL;
appointment of brokers, porters, &c., as in same; mayor, &c., to have
cognisance of pleas as in 2 H. TIV., and hold courts as in t Ed. IV.;
to be clerk of the market as in 23 H. VI.; to have assize of bread, &c.,
asin 2 H.1V.; appointment of justices (see under * Courts *); provision
for removal; confirmation of court leet; fines, &c., in aid of fee-farm,
as in 2 H. [V.; not to be put on juries outside town, as in 1 Ed. IV.,
nor made assessors, &c., as in 25 H. VI., nor constables, &c., out of
the town ; to be free of toll, passage, &c., as in 1 R. I.; not to be im-
pleaded out of the borough as in 40 H. III.; not to be put on juries
with strangers or strangers with them, as in 1 Ed. III.; freed from
murage and pavage as in 10 Ed. II., and from quayage asin 1 Ed. IIL.;
to hold lands, &c., as in 23 H. VI., but not to exceed the amount of
#100 a year; mayor to execute office of steward, marshal, and of

 

1 In this reign the Corporation received grants on the importation of sweet
wines, which were afterwards confirmed by Acts of Parliament (see under ‘ Trade’).

* The cost of this charter was £219, 175. (Journal, 1641, f. 308). It
appears to have been read in the House in English for the first time on Septem-
ber 2, 1640; after reading, it was put into the great chest with the English paper
copy. This last seems to have disappeared,
THE CHARTERS. 159

 

admiral, as in 30 H. VI.; appointment of court of admiralty (see under
Courts’) ; foreign bought and sold as in 23 H. VI.; confirmation of
gauging and weighing ; freedom from prisage all over the kingdom as
by Act of Parl. 23 H. VIII. ; appointment of common council to con-
sist of mayor, recorder, aldermen, bailiffs, and sheriff, and all who have
held those offices, for ever, to assist the mayor, with power to make
statutes, bye-laws, &c.; appointment of a court of orphans; appointment
of town-clerk or common clerk of the town, who shall be clerk of
the peace and sessions, and have fees; four sergeants-at-mace ;
fines for refusal to take office in the town; powers of Corporation
to tax the inhabitants; piccage and stallage to be paid by strangers ;
one or more prisons to be kept in the town; a corn-market to
be held every Thursday; mayor, &c., to take tolls. No person who has
been mayor obliged to bear arms in person. For the benefit of
sailors and fishermen, and the bettering of navigable streams, mayor,
&c., may cleanse all creeks and rivers leading to the town, or within
the liberties where the tide flows, and take the soil for their own use.
The town having incurred a quo warranto in the Court of Exchequer,
brought against them in Trinity term, May 29,! 1635, for the exercise
of divers liberties, privileges, &c., without any warrant or royal grant ;
and having answered nothing in bar or abatement of the information,
through Martin Boothby, their attorney, judgment went against them,
as follows: ‘That all and every one of the said liberties, franchises, and
privileges set forth in the said information should be from that time
taken and seized into our hands, and in our hands should remain, and
be quite extinguished and taken away; and that the said mayor,
bailiffs, and burgesses should be distrained to make fine with us for
their use and usurpation upon us of the said liberties, privileges, and
franchises.’2 By the present charter all penal consequences of this
judgment were remitted, together with all trespasses, contempts, and
misbehaviour of the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses, and confirmation
was granted of all liberties, privileges, &c., contained in any Act of
Parliament, letters patent, or charters not specially altered by these
presents. Westm., 27th June (16 Charles I.)
Soon after the Restoration, namely, in May 1661 (13 Car. II.), the Question

; , ae < of renewal
House considered the desirability of renewing the last charter or pro- of charter,

 

1 Q. R. Mem. Rolls, Trin, 11 Car. I, No. 37.

2 Dr. Speed conjectures that this quo warranto may have been brought
against the town for their having neglected to certify to the Exchequer the
amount of petty customs in that year, no account of which appears; and he
suggests that the omission may have been designed with a view to their appli-
cation for a new charter.
160 THE CHARTERS.

 

curing a fresh one!: a question which from this time periodically

exercised the Corporation.

Towards the end of the reign (Nov. 7, 1683, 35 Car. II.), a com-
mittee, consisting of the mayor, Dr. Speed, and others, was appointed
to examine again the affairs of the town in relation to their charter.
In Trinity term that year, June 1683, the franchises and liberties of
the City of London had been seized into the king’s hands as forfeited
on a quo warranto in the King’s Bench, and the boroughs were made
to feel that their privileges granted or acquired of old time would be
subject to revision by the crown; accordingly they were invited to
surrender their charters with a view to renewal on what, it was repre-
sented, would be favourable terms; the object of the crown being to
obtain a direct hold over all municipal elections. On November 23d
the committee wrote, through Sir Benjamin Newland, one of the
M.P.s for the borough, to Sir Lionel Jenkins, the principal Secretary
of State, excusing themselves on the score of poverty for not imme-
diately surrendering their charter.

As a Corporation they had ever been anxious to show their loyalty, but now
to their sorrow could only look on and approve of their neighbours’ deeds, who
had laid their charters at his Majesty’s feet. | At a Common Council held on the
7th they had agreed to this step, but on examining the charges consequent on
such action, they found themselves wholly unable to proceed. True, Southamp-
ton had been a rich place heretofore, but a series of misfortunes had brought it
low. The late rebellion had robbed the Chamber of all public money; the
plague had consumed their inhabitants, of whom no less than seventeen hundred
had died ; the Dutchmen ? had spoiled them of nearly all their ships ; and lately
the Act of Prohibition 8 had rendered their looms useless, and families hitherto
prosperous were now added to the public burden. Added to this the revenues of
the town were incredibly sunk ; the sweet wine duty, which had formerly brought
them £200 per annum, now scarcely yielded £6, and the Corporation had difficulty
in meeting their liabilities, as also in paying the great rent * to the king of £67,
and keeping up the walls and defences, bulwarks, quays, and sea-banks, the cost
of which the king’s progenitors had been so mindful of that they had remitted
4150 of the old rent when the trade of the port was far greater and the other
burdens were less. Finally, since they were unable to defray the cost of a sur-
render, they begged his honour ‘soe to represent their condition to his most
sacred Majesty that the true cause of their tardiness in delivering up their charter
may be known to be the want of money, not of loyalty,’

 

1 Journal, May 8.
2 This was probably in 1667, when the Dutch forced their way up the Thames

and did much damage along the south coast. But the injury from them to the
Southampton trade was not of course confined to one year.

3 Reference is perhaps to 29 and 30 Car, II. cap. 1, sec. 70, &c,

4 The fee-farm does not seem, however, to have been paid directly to the
crown at the date of this letter (see under ‘ Fee-Farm’).
THE CHARTERS. 161

 

Meanwhile the Council determined, in case his Majesty still desired
a surrender, not to wait for a quo warranto, but to yield at once and
get a new charter on the best terms thev could. On December 13th,
Dr. Owen Wynne, secretary to Sir Lionel Jenkins, replied to the
Council :—

That Sir Lionel had moved his Majesty to renew their charter gratis ; that the
king had been ‘ pleased to declare, That the town of Southampton being now a
town and county, the necessity of trying there all causes arising within the town
is a great trouble to the judges and a grievance to the people: That his Majesty
is of opinion that that franchise of being a county being surrendered among
others, it should be united to the body of Hantshire: That all other liberties,
excepting that of being a town and county, should be saved and restored.’ On
such terms his Majesty would consent to their having a new charter for nothing,
if they could not come up to half fees, the rate at which other poor Corporations
had renewed.

The House agreed to the king’s terms; on September 8, 1684, the
instrument was sealed surrendering their charter, with all their lands,
tenements, patents, and grants, and the petition for a new one signed;
and on November 25 letters of attorney under the town sea] empowered
Dr. Speed, Owen Wynne, Esq., and James Crosse, or any one of them,
to act on the town’s behalf in obtaining the new charter. The king’s
death occurred on the following February and the matter fell through.

James II. following the policy of the preceding king in regard to
the Corporations, a quo warranto dated November 28 (3 Jas. II.), 1687,
was issued against the town, calling upon the mayor and bailiffs to
appear at Westminster and answer for their liberties, privileges, and
franchises. This document was exhibited to the mayor by the under-
sheriff, Richard Good, just half an hour before noon at the Council
meeting on January 23, 1687-88. Thrown into consternation by this
hostile move, which however could not have been unexpected, the
Council sought the aid of the recorder, and took care to dispatch a
messenger that night. On February g they wrote the Attorney-General,
that having been served with a quo warranto, they bad resolved to make

The House
agrees to
extinguish-
ment.

Quo
Warranto.

no defence, but humbly submit the charter to his Majesty’s mercy ; Ther

they said that nothing but their poverty had hindered the renewal o
their franchises before, which had been promised by his late Majesty
on very gracious terms; and at the present time poverty alone hindered
their action, since they could not meet the necessary charges; they
begged that their suffering judgment to pass by default might not be
interpreted unfavourably; they had been advised to that course as
most submissive to the king, least troublesome to the Attorney-General,
and easiest for themselves. Towards the end of the year it was under-

stood that the quo warranto would not be pressed; and on November
i

f submit,
Sentember
1088,

Proposed
charter of
James IL.

162 THE CHARTERS.

 

5, 1688, the recorder was desired to employ some one ‘to see that a
noli prosequi be entered upon the quo warranto brought against the
town,’ and for this the Corporation were ready to disburse.

Meanwhile “a new charter” had actually been prepared, and,
according to Dr. Speed, “was sent to Southampton and lodged, as
“tradition says, in some private hands among the dissenters, in order
“to be produced at a proper time; but as the attempt [of the king to
“repeal the Test Act failed] it was stifled and cancelled. It is now in
“the hands of the Corporation.”

The following are the heads of the intended charter of James II.
(original) :—The ancient franchises of the town having, for various
abuses, been seized into the king’s hands by a judgment on a quo
warranto, a new charter is granted on petition of the inhabitants as
follows :—The town and precincts to be a distinct county. The mayor,
&c., may hold lands, sue and be sued; may have a common seal and
change it at pleasure. A Common Council, to consist of mayor, recor-
der, thirteen} aldermen, and twelve burgesses, one supervisor of the
customs, and one common clerk. Mayor to be chosen from the alder-
men, who are to be continued as before. Common Council may make
laws, &c. The mayor, recorder, four senior aldermen, and four bur-
gesses, to be justices. Three justices (the mayor and recorder or
deputy being two) may take cognisance of trespasses, &c., but not of
crimes involving loss of life or limb without special commission. Mayor
may have a deputy from among the aldermen. On death or removal of
any officer, another to be chosen in manner used during the previous
seven years. Lawful for the king, by order, and under seal of Privy
Council, to remove any officer or burgess. Lawful, within twenty days
of such removal, or death, on royal letters mandatory, to choose, admit,
and swear any one or more, on the nomination of the king, into the
vacant places; and however small the number attending, after proper
notice lawful for them to elect such person or persons named in the
letters maridatory. Elections contrary to the tenor of these presents
void. Dispensation to all officers and burgesses from taking the oath of
the king’s supremacy, and the oath of allegiance, and the oath in the
Act of Parliament ‘for regulating Corporations’ (13 Car. II.), and from
receiving the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and from subscription in
the Act 25 Car. II. ‘against Popish recusants, &c.’ No recorder or
common clerk to be admitted to office without royal approbation under
seal. Corporation may possess manors, &c., under #100 a year. After
the perfecting of this charter new securities to be given for their debts.

 

1 “The charter recites the names of the thirteen new aldermen and the
“ twelve new burgesses, and many of them were dissenters.”
THE MAYOR. 163

 

Confirmation of all ancient privileges not altered by these presents.
Dated. 15th September (4 James II.)

The rectification of the old charter in some particulars long con- Further
tinued a question, and the Corporation occasionally went to some ¢rrenenal
expense in the matter. On September 6, 1723, a petition for a new
charter was agreed to by a majority of the House and received the town
seal; a confirmation of all former grants was requested, together with
such additional franchises as the king might see fit. Nothing, how-
ever, came of this action, and the charter of 16 Charles I. (1640) con-
tinued in force till the Municipal Corporations Act (5 and 6 Will. IV.

cap. 76), 1835.

Section II].—Municipal Offices.

At the commencement of the thirteenth century we find South-
ampton governed by the king’s bailiffs, two or three in number. To
these officers the king directed his writs on every conceivable occasion ;
about repairs to the king’s houses, his cellars, highway, his gaol ; about
his farm, or sending the royal alms from it to the proper quarters, or
making advances from it on the king’s behalf; about royal licences
given to particular persons to trade in Southampton; about sending
ships on the royal errands, or preparing men and horses to accompany
the king; about arresting ships in the port during the king’s will, or
the chattels and bodies of men; about paying the king’s debts, or
carrying his wine about the country, making his good will known to
foreign merchants, and giving them permission to come to the port of
Southampton; about murages and other reliefs to the town. At this
early period there was also a constable of Southampton, who probably
was the military governor (see under Castle’)! But it is equally clear
that early in the same century an officer styled the mayor was frequently
at the head of affairs.

Of the Mayor.

1. There was certainly a ‘mayor’ about 1217, and Benedict Ace y2;5.
ruled in that capacity at least from 1237 to 1249. At the end of this
Jong tenure of office, whether or not in reflection on its late possessor,
the burgesses obtained by royal patent (22d October 1249) the curious
grant that neither they nor their successors should at any time be
governed by a mayor.”

 

1 In 1199 (10 Ric. I.) the men of Southampton were tallaged by Hubert,
Archbishop of Canterbury, Chief Justicier, at fifty marks for the retaining of
serjeants (see Madox, Exchegq., i. 705).

2 Pat, 33 H. III. m.2. Rex omnibus, &c., salutem, Sciatis quod con-
Election.

vate
nina-

164 THE MAYOR.

 

The election of the mayor, as also of the two bailiffs, no doubt in
accordance with ancient precedent, was ordered by the charter of
formal incorporation, July 1445 (23 H. VI.), to take place each year
on the Friday before the Feast of St. Matthew. The electors were the
burgesses. However, in a patent fifteen years later (December 1460),
we find that the method of election was in reality much more restricted.
By a custom, there reported to have existed from time immemorial,
the outgoing mayor, on the Friday before St. Matthew’s Day, in the
presence of the bailiffs and burgesses in the Guildhall, nominated two
burgesses, one of whom was to be chosen as his successor by the
assembly.t_ In spite, however,.of this nomination, the mayor himself
might be re-elected. The following incident drew forth the patent :—
In 1460 Richard Gryme, the outgoing mayor, had made choice of
Nicholas Holmehegge and Walter Fetplace, and had submitted them,
according to ancient custom, to the assembly for an election to the
mayoralty for the ensuing year, when certain burgesses—Andrew James,
Thomas Payn, John Payn, jun., and Walter Bargate, with the assist-
ance of Robert Bagworth, the sheriff, and Walter Aylward—protested
against the old manner of election in the following energetic fashion:
A set of riotous and badly disposed persons, to the number of a hundred
or more, collected together by influence of the above, rushed to the
Guildhall, and with daggers drawn and menacing cries broke in upon
the assembly, interrupted the proceedings, caused Robert Bagworth to
be elected, and bringing him in triumph on their shoulders, placed him
in the chief magistrate’s seat as mayor. The patent called forth by
these turbulent proceedings pronounced the old custom of election to
be good, and directed it to be observed as heretofore, and a mayor to be
chosen accordingly. We are not informed what immediately trans-
pired, but the popular voice so far prevailed that Robert Bagworth
became mayor for the ensuing year, and Walter Aylward was sheriff.2

The above custom was at some time or other varied for a practice
which Dr. Speed knew and thus describes :—“ There is one part of the
“ceremony relating to the election of the mayor which is founded
“wholly upon custom, being mentioned in no charter. It is called
“the ‘private nomination” The form of it is this: On the Friday
“before the Feast of St. Bartholomew [August 24] the mayor and
“aldermen meet in the Audit-house, and put two aldermen and two

 

cessimus Burgensibus nostris de Suhampton quod ipsi et eorum heredes aliquo
tempore non habeant majorem in preedicta villa nostra de Suhampton. In cujus,
&c. Westm., Oct. 22.

1 That is, the court, ‘Ad curiam “assemble ” vulgariter nuncupatam ’ (1413),
‘at the assemble holden in the Guyhald’ (1482),

- Pat. (Dec. 1, 1460) 39 H. VI. m. 13.
THE MAYOR. I

a
wT

 

“junior burgesses upon nomination for mayor, or they put any four
“ burgesses;! and on the morning of the day of election, the Friday
“ before St. Matthew [September 21], the same persons meet together
“ and strike off two of those four; the remaining two are proposed to all
“ the burgesses for one of them to be elected mavor by balloting.” It
was usual, however, before this was done, for the outgoing mayor to
Jet it be known which of the two names it was desired should stand.
The ballot which followed was generally a matter of form. “ Of what
“antiquity this private nomination is I cannot find; the proceedings
“ of it are enrolled. It is mentioned in the mayor’s accounts as a
“ thing of course in 19 Elizabeth 1587; and I have seen the rolls of it
“as far back as 1615. Notwithstanding which, it appears by the
“ Journal that in 1617 two of the burgesses at the election of the
“ mayor openly in the Town-hall opposed the ancient custom of the
‘‘ private nomination, but being called before the Common Council
“ for the same, they submitted. In 1724 the burgesses again opposed
“it, when Chief Justice Eyre, who had been recorder of the town
“ twenty years, and had quitted that office the year before, was present,
“and declared that the custom was good in law, and that it ought to
“ be kept up.2. When any burgess is put upon election for mayor, he
“ is continued three years, if not chosen before the expiration of that
“time; and after being rejected three times, he is laid by till his turn
“ comes round again.”

The above custom of private nomination was continued till the
passing of the Municipal Corporations Reform Act of 1835, under
which, according to a uniform rule provided therein for all boroughs,
and extended by the Act of 1882, the mayors are elected by the
Council each gth November from among the aldermen or councillors,
or persons qualified to be such, so that previously to election the mayor
need not have been a member of the Corporation.

The duties and importance® of the office of mayor grew with the

 

1 It seems to have been usual previously to the Municipal Corporations
Reform Act (1835) to place in nomination the two senior aldermen who had not
served the office of mayor twice, and the two senior burgesses who had served as
sheriff but not as mayor.

2 In 1759 it was ordered, on account of some laxity in apparel, that the alder-
men should attend at the private nominations in their scarlet gowns, and that
the mace and oar should be borne before the mayor on his way to and from the
Audit-house ; that the town-clerk should also attend in his gown (Journal,
August 17).

3 It need hardly be said that affronts to the mayor were heavily visited. As
a specimen the following appraisement for ‘unfittyng wordes to y* meyer be a
borges’ may be noted :— Item [received] of Jamys Grace for a fyne for gevyng
unfitting wurdes vnto me the sayde meyre the tyme of my meyraltie, and after
agreed yn the Audite howse for ij’, xii’. iti’

Dignity of
the office.
166 THE MAYOR.

 

 

privileges of the town. Besides his former judicial and administrative
functions, the mayor by the charter of formal incorporation (23 Hen.
VI.) was made king’s escheator; and the town was exempted from
obedience to any constable, marshal, or admiral of England, or to the
steward and marshal or clerk of the royal household, who were to hold
no pleas within the town or liberties, or within the port of Portsmouth,
which was included in the town’s jurisdiction; but the mayor himself
was to be clerk of the market; and the town being at this time made
a staple, and permission given to choose each year a mayor and two
constables of the staple on the Friday before St. Matthew’s Day, the
chief officer of the town in point of fact became the mayor of the
staple, with all the necessary attributes of that office, and the bailiffs
were the constables.

By charter 25 Henry VI. (March 1447), the town with its liberties
and port was made a county, power being consequently given to elect
a sheriff, to be certified by the mayor to the barons of the Exchequer.
Five years later (30 Hen. VI.) the authority and office of steward and
marshal of the household and admiral of England within the town,
liberties, and port of the town and county, were conferred upon the
mayor,

In charter 1 Edward IV. (1461) the presidency of the mayor over
the various courts is set forth. The charter of 16 Charles I. (June
1640)—the governing charter till 1835—re-granted in particular every
privilege which had before been enjoyed, with certain variations and
additions. In the grant of admiralty an appeal was given to the Lord
High Admiral of England. The mayor was made gauger and weigher
of goods at the king’s standard. By the same charter the Common
Council, with the mayor at its head, was newly defined; a court of
orphans was instituted; and the dignity of the mayor’s office was con-
sulted by the permission that no person who had filled the chair should
be obliged to bear arms in person, but might always be permitted
to find a suitable deputy. Previously to 1835 the mayor was always
appointed one of the four aldermen of wards, and one of the auditors of
accounts ; he was also appointed aulnagar, that is, measurer or superin-
tendent over the assize of cloth, one of the keepers of the town keys
and of the great chest, and one of the supervisors of land: these offices
were entirely nominal. Since the Act of 1835 the duties of the mayor-
alty have been laid down for all boroughs, and need not be here detailed.
Among various official acts which the mayor has been called upon to
perform was that of the solemnisation, or rather legalising, of marriages
during the Commonwealth period—a duty placed upon him in common
with other magistrates by Cromwell’s Act, dated 24th August 1653,
which prescribed that banns of matrimony should be published in the
THE MAYOR. 167

 

nearest market on three several days, and that the ceremony should be
performed by a justice of the peace, whilst a registrar was appointed in
every parish for the purposes of registration. Thus we find in the
church registers, from the abeve date till the Restoration, marriages
constantly performed by the mayors, Horne, Pitt, Clungeon, Scale,
Capelin; also by the mayor of Winchester, and by various other justices
of the peace, not only of the town and neighbourhood, but of Salisbury
and other places. Among the town burgesses whom we find thus most
frequently employed appear to be Peter Le Gay, Thomas Cornelius,
Christopher Walleston, Robert Wroth, Joseph De la Motte.

Formerly, like the members of Parliament, the mayors received Allow-
remuneration. Under 1481 we find £10 per annum assigned to the ices
mayor of old custom. In 1505 John Fleming, mayor, was ordered to
receive the same, provided that no mayor in future had anything to do
with the town’s money. In 1617 the allowance, which had been £20
since 1578, was increased to #50, and in 1623, on account of the
town’s indebtedness, reduced to £30, viz., £20, the older sum, and
£10 instead of the privilege of making a burgess. In 1726 the allow-
ance of £20 was taken away: it is stated to have been originally
granted when the town had #500 at interest, and might be restored
when the Corporation should have £400 at interest: this occurred
later. Dr. Speed says of his time: “The perquisites of the mayor’s
“office are very small, depending chiefly on the will of the Common
“Council, who have sometimes ordered a sum of money for the.
““mayor’s table, never exceeding £50, generally much less. At other
“times they have ordered some articles of the public money of the
“* Corporation to be given to the mayor, which last is continued still,
“but it amounts to no great matter. The mayor has likewise the
“liberty of making one burgess in his year, and the price for admis-
“sion is the mayor’s perquisite: but all these things depend on the
* will of the burgesses, who have frequently altered them. The mayor
‘has besides some port dues, but they are trifling.” In 1802, instead
of the dues on corn and coals, then discontinued, the mayor was
allowed twenty-five guineas per annum. In the depression of 1830 all
dinners, perquisites, and even the daily newspaper hitherto taken in
for the mayor, were stopped.

Instances of the mayor creating burgesses are numerous. In 1501
(17 Hen. VII.) he was permitted to make a burgess by way of wiping
off a debt of £10 owed him by the town. In 1534 (26 Hen. VIII.)
Anthony Guidotti, merchant, of Florence, afterwards knighted for his
services to the state, April 1550, was made mayor’s burgess, but was
crossed out, together with Giles Hashert, by Mr. Baker, mayor, because
they were strangers, and had been made burgesses by Mr. Huttoft
Deposi-
tion.

Refusing
to serve,

Oath or
declara-
tion,

168 THE MAYOR.

 

without the consent of his brethren, contrary to the order of the

town.!
The mayor has no perquisites at the present day, but it would be

lawful for him to receive such remuneration as the Council might

think fit. ;
“Though the form of deposing the mayor be directed by the

“ charter (16 Charles I.), yet there is no instance of it being done by
“the Corporation without the intervention of superior power. In 2
“Edward IV. (1463) a mayor was deposed by the king’s mandamus,
“But since the charter of Charles I. the only instances are that A.D.
“1665 William Higgins, mayor, and some others, were expelled the
“ Corporation by order of Cromwell and his Council.” The avoidance
of the office is provided for in certain cases under the present law.
“The fine for refusing to serve the office of mayor has usually been
“ £100, which has been commonly given to the person chosen in the
“place of the recusant. In 1643 Richard Cornelius for £100 was
“excused from ever serving the office of mayor or any other office, but
“still kept his place in the Corporation.”

In earlier centuries the burdens of municipal office, like those of
parliamentary representation, were not unfrequently avoided. In
November 1414 (2 Hen. V.) Thomas Armorer, who had filled the office
of bailiff for many years, appeared before the mayor, aldermen, bailiffs,
and others of the prodes-hommes assembled in congregation, and pro-
duced letters patent of the late king (December 1412) granting him
freedom from serving any corporate office for the rest of his life.?

The fine for not serving is placed at #100 by the Acts of 1835 and
1882,

“ The Mayor's Oath.

“You shall well and truly serve the King our Sovereign Lord, and his heirs
“and successors, in the office of the Mayoralty of this town: and the same town
“shall surely guide and keep to the behalf our Sovereign Lord the King, his heirs
‘and successors: and the King’s profit shall do and maintain that belongeth
‘“unto you; and the right of our said Sovereign Lord and all that to the crown
“‘appertaineth in the said town you shall lawfully keep and save: you shall
“ not assent to any hurt or concealment against the town, but all good orders of
“the said town to the uttermost of your power you shall maintain. And where
“ vou know any of the King’s right, be it in lands, in rents, in franchises, or in suits,
“ concealed or withdrawn, you shall cause it to be revealed. And if you cannot

 

1 Burgesses’ Book. Guidotti died December 2, 1555. His house at Hamp-
ton is noted by Leland as remarkably fine. In the subsequent decay of the
town under Elizabeth it had fallen into sad disrepair, and proclamation was
made, March 1569, at the house ‘late called my lady Guidotte’s’ by the
mayor, under stat. 32 Hen. VIII. (1540), cap. 18.

? Liber Niger, f. 23 b.
LIST OF MAYORS, BAILIFFS, AND SHERIFFS. 169

 

“do it, you shall show it the King’s Majesty, or them of his most honourable
“ Council, the which shall certainly show it to our said Sovereign Lord. And that
“lawfully and rightfully you shall intreat the King’s liege people within your
“ liberties, and that you shall do right to all men, as well to strangers as to
“Englishmen, to poor and to rich, in that belongeth to you for todo. And that
“neither for riches, for reward, for gift, for promise, for favour, ne for hatred, you
“shall no wrong do to any man, nor none shall suffer to be done, as far as you
“may, or to your power. And that you shall put good guard and rule upon the
“assise of bread, and wine, ale, and other victuals, measures and weights, within
“ the said town, making due and ready search, and execution of all defaults: you
“ shall all good and laudable orders of the town see to be observed and kept in all
‘* points, and this to follow accordingly : and all other things appending or apper-
“ taining unto the mayor of the said town to do, or to be done, vou shall well and
“truly do to the uttermost of your power. So help you God by this Book.”

The ancient oaths of mayor, &c., are no longer taken as oaths, but
as solemn declarations. They were continued to be used until the
passing of the Promissory Oaths Act, 1868. The declaration on
acceptance of office prescribed by the Act of 1882 is the same as under
that of 1835. The mayor is now invested with the chain of office, the
gift of Bercher Baril, Esq., at Christmas, 1792, as anciently with the
tippet; he also receives, ‘that he may always have money in his
pocket,’ the #5 of ancient coins given under the will of Andrew
Meares of Millbrook shortly before 1658. The coins are preserved in
the Audit-house.

List of Mayors, Bailiffs, and Sheriffs.

There hangs in the Audit-house a list of the mayors, &c., of the
town, commencing with 1237—a beautiful specimen of calligraphy, in
which the town seals of the various periods are accurately drawn: this
list was substituted on 19th December 1828 for earlier and less correct
tables, which commenced with 1445, and have now disappeared.

The authorities for a list of mayors among the town archives are
chiefly, for the period before 1444, a very considerable number of
separate deeds of different kinds, and enrolments in Liber Niger ;
from September 1444 to 1619 the succession of all the town officers is
regularly entered in Liber Remembranciarum H., ff. 37 to 84 b, and
from f. 90 to 102 b. From the last date onward the entries occur in
the various town journals

In the following list the Audit-house tables have been always kept
in view, any additions or rectifications of reading being specified ;
minute variations in spelling the same name are not noticed. Entries
marked * are additions to the Audit-house tables.
170

LIST OF MAYORS AND BAILIFFS.

 

Year of Taking Office.
1205 (7 John)
1209 (11 John)
1212 (13 John)
¢.1217 (1 H. IIL.)
1222 (6 H, III.)
¢. 1235 (19H. III.)

1237 (21H. IIL)
1247 (31 H.III.)

1248 (32 H, IIL)

1260 (44 H. III.)
1262 (46H. IIL.)

1270 (54 H. III.)
1284 (12 EI.
1286 (14E. 1.

2

)
1288 (16 E. I.)
1290 (18 E. 1.)
)

T291 (19 E. 1.
(?)

1294 (22 E.
1295 (23 E.

’)
1298 (26 E.

(?)
1300 (28 E,

1.)

1)
(?
1303 (31 E, 1.)

Mayors.

*A mayor mentioned.*

Benedict, the son of Azon,

Benedict, son of Azon,

Benedict, son of Azon,

Simon de la Bolehuge.

Robert le Mercier.
John de Bynedon,

Robert le Mercier,
Robert le Barbyr,
* Robert le Mercier, !°

Thomas le Blunde,
Robert le Mercier.

*Robert le Barbour.!”
Robert le Barbyr.

*Peter de Lyons.!8
John de Schyeriye,

*Peter de Lyons, 4
Adam le Horder.

Bailiffs,
*William de St, Lawrence,*Thomas
de Bussuse,1
*Goce.?
*Roger Swein,* William Anglicus,3
*Ralph Isembart, *Michael le
Fleming.§
*Walter Fortin, *John de la Bule-
huse, *Robert Monachus.°
Walter le Fleming.

Walter le Flameng, William
Fortin.
Walter le Flameng, *Thomas

Blundus, *Matthew Gese.*
*Roger Noel, *John Fortin.®
Thomas de Andever, Ralph the
Little.
Thomas le Blunde,
Mercier,
William Beanbel,
Henry le Fleming, James Isam-
bert.

John de Puteo, Adam le Hordyer.
*Robert le Barbur, *Robert le
Mercer, *Peter de Lyons,9

John de Puteo,
*Thomas le Blunde, *John de
Borgoyne.
Peter de Lyons,
Nigel}! de la Wilderne, John de
Bourgoyne.
*Peter de Lyons, *John de Vaus.
John de Schyerlye, John Hole-
bury.
*John de Holebury, * William Bas-

Robert le

singrom.,
William Bassingrom, Walter
Forst,
William Fugehel, *Robert le

Horder.16

 

1 Printed Close Rolls.

? God’s House Computus.

3 Madox, F. B., 158.

* *The mayor and men of Southampton to Peter, Bishop of Winchester, and

Hubert de Burgh, justiciar, &c.’
5 Printed Close Rolls,
7 Madox, Form.,

p. 379. Tables

8 Abbrev, Plac., 44 and 45 H. III.

10 Deed of Richerius Tresaut.

Letters, time of H. III. (Rolls Series),
® Deed of Prior Richard, Addit. 15, 314,f. 71 b.
put Blunde and Gese under 1249.

® Rot, Parl,

A note of interrogation means that the actual

year is uncertain, though the persons were in office close to the period at which
MN Tables, Michael.

they are placed.

2 Deed of Henry le Lung.
M4 Lease of Customs,

13 Deed of Prior Richard of St, Denys.
15 West Hall Deeds,
LIST OF MAYORS AND BAILIFFs. I7I

 

Year of Taking Office, Mayors, Bailiffs,
(?) a *Thomas Stone, *Nigel de la
Wilderne.!
(?) *Robert le Mercer.? *Philip or John de Puteo, *Henry
de Lymm.
1311 (5 E. IL.) John de Scherley. William Fugehel, William Basing-
rom, jun.
1313 (7 E. IL.) Hugo Sampson. John de Vaus, Nicholas® de Mon-
denard,
(?) *Thomas de Binedon.4 *Nicholas deLyonns, Hugo Samp-
son,
1315 (9 E. IL) Henry de Lym. John de Vaus, William Fugehel.

1316 (10 E. IL.) Thomas de Bynedon.® Richard de Sutton, John de Vaus,
1317 (11 E. Il.) Richard de Barefluet. Robert Waryn, William Bassin-

grom.

1318 (12 E, IL) Hugo Sampson, Richard Forst, John Stacy.

1319 (13 E. IL) John le Flemynge. John Balmayr [Balvayr ?], Rich-
ard Bagge.

1320 (14 E, IL) Henry de Lym. John de Ronde, Nicholas Samp-
son,

1321 (15 E. IL) Richard Forst. John le Barbyr, John de Vaus,

1323 (17 E, IL) Hugo Sampson, John le Barbyr, Richard de
Suttone,

1324 (18 E, II.) Thomas de Bynedon, John le Barbour, Richard de
Sutton,

1326 (20 E, IL.) Walter de Brakkelye. Robert de la Barre, Thomas de
Nutshulling.

1328 (2 E. IIL) Roger Norman. Robert de la Barre.

1329 (3 E, III.) Henry de Lym. John Barbour, Nicholas de Mon-
denard,

1330 (4 E, IIL) Roger Norman. Nicholas de Mordenard, Robert
atte Barre,

1331 (5 E. IIL) Thomas de Bynedon. Henry le Flemynge, Nicholas de
Mondenard.

1332 (6 E., III.) Nicholas de Mondenard. Robert de la Barre, Thomas de
Nushellynge.

1333 (7 E. IIL) Hugo Sampson. Robert de la Barre, Thomas de
Nushellynge.

1334 (8 E. IIL) Lawrence de Mees, Nicholas Sampson, Robert atte
Barre,

1336 (10 E. III.) Thomas de Bynedon., Robert de la Barre, Walter de
Brakkeleye.

1339 (13 E. IIL) John Forst. Nicholas Lony, Walter de Brak-
kele,

1340 (14 E. IIL) Thomas del Marche. Adam Inweys, Robert de Col-
yngburne,

1341 (15 E. IIL) John Forst. Nicholas Sampson, jun.

 

1 West Hall Deeds, 2 Deed of Le Mercer and West Hall Deeds,

3 Tables, Michael. 4 Deed of W. Bassingrom, 5 Tables, Lynn.

6 These were in office in February 1317 (10 E. II, deed of Matilda
Basingrom), so that they were elected in September 1316, not in 1317 as Tables ;
for similar reason the dates are varied from those in the Tables by one year very
frequently till 1370.
172

LIST OF MAYORS AND BAILIFFS.

 

Year of Taking Office.

1342 (16 E, III.)
1343 (17 E. IIL)
1344 (18 E, IIL.)
1345 (19 E, III.)
1346 (20 E, III.)
1347 (21 E, IIL)
1348 (22 E, III.)
1350 (24 E, II.)
1354 (28 E, II.)
1357 (31 E. IIL)
1358 (32 E. III.)
1359 (33 E. IIL.)
1361 (35 E. IIL)
1362 (36 E. IIL.)
1363 (37 E. III.)
1365 (39 E. IIL)
1366 (40 E. IIL)
1367 (41 E, IIL)
1368 (42 E, III.)
1369 (43 E, IIL.)
1370 (44 E. Ill)
1371 (45 E. IIL)
1372 (46 E, IIL.)
1373 (47 E. IIL.)
1374 (48 E. IIL)
1375 (49 E. IIL.)

1376 (50 E. IIL)
1377 (1 R. IL)
1378 (2 R. IIL.)
1379 (3 R. IL)
1380 (4 R. IL)
1381 (5 R. IL.)
1382 (6 RIL)
1383 (7 R. IL)
1384 (8 R. IL)
1385 (9 R. I.)
1387 (11 R. IL.)
1388 (12 R. IL)
1390 (14 R. IL)
1391 (15 R. IL.)
1392 (16 RII.)
1393 (17 R. IL)
1394 (18 R. IL)
1395 (19 R. Il.)
1396 (20 RIL)
1397 (21 R, IL)

Mayors,
Richard Imberd.
Nicholas Lony.?
Henry le Flemynge.
John Fysmarke,
Richard Comyn.
Richard Elmele.
John Forst.

*Thomas le Clerk.?
John le Clerk.

*Adam Inweys.?
Adam Inweys.
Adam Inweys.
John Wytegode.
John le Clerk.
John le Clerk,
John Polymond,
William Bacon.

*John Wytegode.*
Edward Dieugard,
John Polymond.

Radulph Tailleur.

Robert Bechesfounte,

William Bacon, jun.

Nicholas Langstocke.

William Bacon,

‘William Metmedtaull:
William Malmeshull.

Nicholas Langstocke,

John Polymond,
John Polymond.
John Polymond,
William Walderne.
John Polymond.
John Polymond,
William Mapel.
William Mapel.
William Maple.
John Polymond,
John Polymond,
Walter Long.

Nicholas® Langestocke,

John Flete.,
William Mapel.
John Flete.

Bailiffs.

William de Baddeby.
Robert de Colyngburne.
John le Clerk.

Robert de Colyngburne.
Robert de Colyngburne,
Adam Inweys.

John Wytegode.
*John Haynes,

Thomas de Abyndon.
*Henry Staunford.

John Jardyn, Henry Staunford,
John Custumer.

Henry Staunford.
Henry Staunford.
Henry Staunford,
William Malmeshull,
Edward Dieugard.
*Nicholas Langestoke.
Roger Mascal, *John Scarlett.®
William Malmeshull,
Nicholas Sherwynde.
*William Malmeshull.?
William Malmeshull.
William Malmeshull,
John Swofham,

William Malmeshull,
Richard Mey.
Richard Mey.
William Walderne,
John Swofham,
John Flete.

John Swofham,
William Bowyer,
John Flete.

John Flete.

John Appelby.

John Flete.

John Flete.

John Flete.

John Penkeston.
John Flete.

John Botiller,

John Penkeston.,
Richard Bradewey.

 

1 Tables, Richard ; name is Nicholas in Deeds,

2 Oak Book,

3 Deed.

* Deed.
® Left on authority of Audit-house Tables,

5 Deed of W. of Wykeham.
Ralph Tailleur was certainly one

of the four ‘Scavins’ in March 1372 (46 E. III.), having doubtless been elected
in September 1371, so that this entry is doubtful.
7 Deed of John le Clerke,

® Tables, Michael,
LIST OF MAYORS AND BAILIFFS. I

NI
Us

 

Year of Taking Office,
1398 (22 R. II.)
1399 (23 R. IL)

Mayors.
William Overey.!
William Ravenston,?

Bailiffs.
Richard Bradewey, *John Botiller,
Thomas Wellis,

1400 (1 H. IV.) John Botiller. John Cosyn, John Derynge.

1401 (2 H. IV.) Thomas Middelyngton. Henry Holewey, William Nicholl.

1402 (3 H. IV.) Thomas Middelyngton, Henry Holewey, John Barflet.3

1403 (4 H. IV.) Thomas Middelyngton, John Cosyn, John Beneyt.

1404 (5 H. IV.) Henry Holwey. John Cosyn, Thomas Armorer.

1405 (6 H. IV.) Richard Bradewey. John Cosyn, John Mascall,

1406 (7 H. IV.) William Overey. John Cosyn, Thomas Armorer.

1407 (8 H. IV.) Walter Longe. William Nicholl, Thomas Armorer.

1409 (10 H. IV.) John Beneyt. John Mascall, Thomas Armorer,

1410 (11 H. IV.) Henry Holwey. William Bredlep, Thomas Ar-
moorer.

1411 (12 H, IV.) William Nicoll. John Maschall, Thomas Armorer.

1412 (13 H. IV.) Henry Holwey,. John Renaud, Thomas Armorer.

1413 (1 H. V.) John Beneyt. Thomas Regald, Thomas Armorer.

1414 (2 H. V.) John Mascall. Walter Fettiplace, Thomas Ar-
morer,

1415 (3 H. V.) John Renawd. Thomas Regald, Robert Danyell.

1416 (4 H. V.) William Soper. Peter James, Robert Danyell.

1417 (5 H.V.) William Nicoll, Peter James, Robert Danyell.

1418 (6 H. V.) John Benet. Thomas Regald, Robert Danyell.

1419 (7 H. V.) Walter Fettiplace, John Selder, Benedict Wychefort.

1420 (8 H. V.) John Mascall, Thomas Frelond, Benedict
Wycheford,

1421 (9 H. V.) John Mascall. Thomas Frelond, _—_ Benedict
Wycheford,

1422 (1 H. VL.) = * William Nicoll.4 *Thomas  Frelond, *Benedict
Wychefort.

1423 (2 H. V1) Thomas Belle. John Selder, Benedict Wychfort.

1424 (3 H. VL.) William Soper. Henry Bacon, John Emory.

1425 (4 H. VI.) Thomas Frelond. Thomas Wynterborne, Adam
Merysh.

1426 (5 H. VI.) Walter Fetplace, John Estewell, Robert Floryse.

1427 (6 H. V1.) William Nicholl. John Selder, Robert Floryse.

1428 (7 H. VI.) Peter Jamys. John Emory, Robert Floryse.

1430 (9 H. V1.) Thomas Belle, John Emory, Benedict Wychefort.

1431 (10 H, VI.) Thomas Belle. John Emery, Benedict Wychfort,

1432 (11 H. VI.) Walter Fetplace. Ralph Chamberleyn, Robert
Hovyngham.

1433 (12 H. VI.) John Emery. Robert Aylward, Robert Hovyng-
ham,

1435 (14 H. VI.) Peter James. Adam Mersh (or  Bochier),é
Robert Floryse.

1436 (15 H. VL.) Robert Aylward. Peter Payn, Robert Floryse,

1437 (16 H. VI.) = (?) William Nycoll.

1438 (17 H. VI.) William Marche.® John Bedyll, James Thyrletha-
rappe.

1439 (18 H. VI) Walter Fetplace. William Flecher, James Thyrle-

tharappe.

 

1 Was in office September 10, 1399, therefore elected previous year (Deed).

2 Prob. in office this year ; Tables, 1398.
3 Tables, Basset.
5 Deeds of J. Boteler and J. Barnabas,

* Deed, July 1423.
6 Deed of W. Soper,
174

LIST OF MAYORS, BAILIFFS, AND SHERIFFS.

 

Year of Taking Office.
1441 (20 H. VI.)

1442 (21 H. VL)

1443 (22 H.
1444 (23 H.
1445 (24 H.
1446 (25 H.

Mayors.
Robert Aylward.

Robert Aylward,

Walter Fetplace,
Walter Fetplace,
John Flemang.?
John Flemmynge.

Bailiffs.
John Bedell,! Nicholas Holm-
hegge.
John Budell, Nicholas Holm-
hegge.

Gabriel Corbet.

*John Cadese, *Andrew James.

By charter of March 9, 1447 (25 Henry VI.), the town was erected into a

county, and permitted to choose a sheriff on May 1, 1447.

After this date the

names of the sheriffs are entered on this list, and the bailiffs are omitted.

Year of Taking Office.
1447 (26 H. VI.)
1448 (27 H. VI.)
1449 (28 H. VI.)
1450 (29 H. VL.)
1451 (30 H. VI.)
1452 (31 H.
1453 (32 H.
1454 (33 H.
1455 (34 H.
1456 (35 H.
1457 (36 H.
1458 (37 A.
1459 (38 H.
1460 (39 H.
1461 (1 E. IV.)
1462 (2 E, IV.)

Mayors,

Peter James.

John Wylliams.

Robert Aylward.

John Payne.

John Payne.

Andrew Jamys.

Robert Aylward.

Nicholas Holmehegg.

John Wylliams.

John Wylliams,

Walter Clerk,

Walter Clerk.

Richard Gryme.

Robert Bagworth.

John Dunne,?

John Payne, deposed by
order of king, May
13, 1463, and Walter
Fettiplace elected May
20,

Walter Fettiplace.

Walter Fettiplace.

Gilbert Cornemonger,

John Walker,

John Walker.

Robert Bagworth,

John William,

John William.

Robert Bluet.

Thomas Payne.

John Walker.

William Ovray

Robert Bagworth.

Thomas Raynold

William Gunter.

Sheriffs.
Henry Bruyn,

Andrew James.
William Harbelton,
Simon Patryk.
Thomas Payne.
Gabriel Corbet.
John Dunne.
Walter Clerk,
Walter Fettplace.
William Nedham,
Richard Gryme.
Robert Bagworth,
Walter Aylward,
John Walker.
Gilbert Cornemonger,

Michael Luke.
William Nedham,
Richard Asshe.
Vincent Pittelesden.
Robert Bluet.

John Burghbrigge (or Pourbike).4
Thomas Reynolds,
John Spryng.
Thomas Avan.
William Ovray.
Geoffrey Moumbray.
Vincent Tehy.
William Gunter.
William Burgbrigge,
John Shropshire,

 

1 Tables, Bridell.
3 Tables, Donne.

2 Deed of R. Rodende.
* Deed of Joanna Tylby.
LIST OF MAYORS AND SHERIFFS.

175

 

Year of Taking Office,
1478 (18 E, IV.)
1479 (19 E. IV.)
1480 (20 E. IV.)

1481 (21 E. IV.)
1482 (22 E. IV.)
1483 (1 R. IIL.)
1484 (2 R. III.)
1485 (1 H. VIL)
1486 (2 H. VII.)
1487 (3 H. VIL)
1488 (4 H. VIL)
1489 (5 H. VII.)
1490 (6 H., VII.
1491 (7 H. VII.)
1492 (8 H., VII.
1493 (9 H. VIL)
1494 (10 H, VIL)
1495 (11 H. VIL
1496 (12 H. VII.)
1497 (13 H. VIL.
1498 (14 H. VIL)
1499 (15 H. VII.)
1500 (16 H. VII.)
1501 (17 H. VIL.)
1502 (18 H, VIL
1503 (19 H. VII.)
1504 (20 H. VIL.)
1505 (21 H, VII.
1506 (22 H. VII.)
1507 (23 H, VIL
1508 (24 H. VII.)
1509 (1 H. VIII.
15to (2 H. VIII.)
1511 (3H. VIII.)
1512 (4 H. VIIL)
1513 (5 H. VIIL)
1514 (6 H. VIIL)
1515 (7 H. VIIL)
1516 (8 H. VIIL)
1517 (9 H. VIII
1518 (10 H. VIIL.)

Mayors.

John Ludlowe.

John Shropshire.

Thomas Avan,

Lewis Eynes,!

Walter Wylliam.

Walter Wylliam,? fled
after his re-election,
and took sanctuary,
and John Walker,?
was elected 29th
Sept. (1 R. IIL)

Vincent Tehy,

William Gunter,

Christopher Ambrose,

Lewis Aynes,1}

Thomas Overey.

Thomas Overey.

Thomas Overey.

Thomas Dymock.

Thomas Dymock,

William Gunter.

Masse Salmon and
John Walsh?

John Walsh,

John Godfrey.

Christopher Ambrose.

Vincent They.

Peter Spryng.

Robert Busshoppe.

William Justice.

Thomas Dymmok.

John Flemyng,

John Fleming.

John Godfrey.

John Baudewyne.

Robert Bisshoppe.

Robert Bisshoppe.

Nicholas Cowert,

Nicholas Cowart.

Richard Hylle.

Peter Stoneherd.

John Bawedwyne, died
Feb, 15, 1514, and
John Favour elected.

William Chalke.

William Chalke.

John Parchard.

Thomas Lyster.

Nicholas Dey.

Sheriffs.
Lewis Eynes,!
John Spryng.
Thomas Smyth,
Walter William.
David White.
Christopher Ambrose,

Richard Harewode,3
William Perchard,
Thomas Dymmok.
Thomas Overey,
William Hekley.
Massias Salmon.
Reginald Chamber,
John Gildon.

John Godfray,
John Walsh.

Peter Spryng.

William Justise.
John Ward.

James Maryk.
Robert Busshoppe.
John Flemyng.
John Bawdwyne.
Ralph Calton,
Robert Yonge.
John Goughe.
Robert Wright.
Nicholas Cowart,
Richard Hylle.
Peter Stonerd,
John Favour,
John Grygge.
William Chalk,
John Husee,

John Percherd,
William Westmylle.

Thomas Lyestarr.
Robert Milles.
Nicholas Dey.
Gilbert Mountegue.
Walter Baker,

 

1 Tables, Laurence Gynes.

3 Tables, Harew.

2 See under
4 Lib,

M.P.’s; Tables, John Walter,
Remembrance. H,
176

LIST OF

MAYORS AND SHERIFFS.

 

Year of Taking Office.
1519 (11 H, VIII.)

1520 (12 H. VIII)
1521 (13 H. VIII.)
1522 (14 H. VIIL)
1523 (15 H. VIIL)
1524 (16 H. VIII.)
1525 (17 H. VIIL)
1526 (18 H, VIII.)
1527 (19 H, VIII.)
1528 (20 H, VIIL)
1529 (21 H. VIIL)
1530 (22 H, VIIL)
1531 (23 H. VIIL)
1532 (24 H. VIIL)
1533 (25 H. VIII.)
1534 (26H. VIIL)
1535 (27 H. VIIL)
1536 (28 H, VIII.)
1537 (29 H. VIIL)
1538 (30 H. VIII
1539 (31 H. VIII.)
1540 (32 H. VIII.)
1541 (33 H. VIIL)
1542 (34 H, VIII.)
1543 (35 H. VIIL)
1544 (36 H. VIII
1545 (37 H. VIIL)
1546 (38 H. VIIL)
1547 (1 E. VL)
1548 ts E. VL)
1549 (3 E. VI.)
1550 (4 E. VL.)
1551 (5 E. VI.)
1552 (6 E. V1.)
1§53 (1 Mary)
1554

1555

1556

1557
1558
1559
1560
1561 ( )
1562 ( .)
1563 (5 Eliz.)

( )

( )

( )

(1 Eliz.)
(2 Eliz)

1564
1565
1566

Mayors.
Richard Hyll.
Richard Hyll.
Gilbert Mountegue.
Walter Baker.
Sampson Thomas,
John Perchard.
Henry Huttoft.
Thomas Hussey.
Thomas Lyster.
Nicholas Dey.
Henry Waterman.
Walter Baker,
Walter Baker.
Richard Capleyn.
John Perchard.
Henry Huttoft.
Sampson Thomas.
Thomas Lyster.
Thomas Husse.
Nicholas Dey.
Peter Westbroke,

Peter Westbroke, died.

Nicholas Burwell.?
Walter Baker.
Thomas Rygges.
Richard Capleyne.
Thomas Lyster.
Thomas Fasshon.
James Stonerd.
Thomas Beckingham.
Edmund Bisshopp.
Thomas Ridgis,
Thomas Godarde,
Richard Butler.

John Caplyne.
John Capelyn,

(1 &2 P.&M.) John Stavely.
(2&3 P.&M.) John Flecher.
(3 &4P.&M.) Richard Hawkins.
(4&5 P.&M.)
(5 &6P.&M.) John Gregory.

George Vincent.

Edward Willmott.
Nicholas Capelyn,
William Stavely.
Henry Russell.
Richard Buttler.
Richard Butler,
John Brodocke.
Robert Eyer.

Sheriffs.
Sampson Thomas.
Thomas Huse.
Henry Huttoft.
Henry Waterman.
William Jamys.
John Ichyn.

Peter Westbroke.
Richard Caplyne.
Thomas Huttoft.
John Piers,

John Walshe.
Edward Mercaunt,.
Roger Thomas.
Nicholas Berell.
James Groce.
Robert Millett.
James Stonerd,
Roger Thomas.
Edward Markant.
William Barwell.!
Thomas Rigges.
Thomas Berry.

Thomas Fasshon.
Edmund Bysshoppe.
John Vaughon. .
Stephen Omedeux.
Thomas Beckingham,
Robert Renegar.
Thomas Welles,
Thomas Godard.
Richard Butler.
John Caplen.
John Fletcher,
John Staveley.
George Vincent.
Richard Hawkyns,
Edward Willmott.
John Gregory.
Nicholas Capelyn.
William Staveley.
Thomas Mill,
Henry Russell.
Thomas Edmundes.
John Brodoke,
John Marche,
William Capelin,
Reginald Howse.
John Awnde, died in July 1567 ; 4
Thomas Edmundes elected.

 

1 Tables, Berell.
3 Tables, Ayre.

2 Roll of Mayors,
4 Lib, Rem. H.
LIST OF MAYORS AND SHERIFFS. ree

 

Year of Taking Office.
1567 (9 Eliz.)
1568 (10 Eliz.)

Sheriffs,

William Jefferys,

Lawrence Grosse, died March 2,
1569; John Knight, elected
March 7,

Thomas Terner.?

Mayors.
John Marche.
John Croke.

Richard Godderd,
Reginald Housse. Thomas Shuxborowe,
John Knight. Thomas Dingley.
William Jefferys, died John Jackson,
December 29;2 Wil-
liam Capelin elected

1569 (11 Eliz.)
1570 (12 Eliz.)
1571 (13 Eliz.)
1572 (14 Eliz.)

1573 (15 Eliz.)
1574 (16 Eliz.)
1575 (17 Eliz.)
1576 (18 Eliz.)
1577 (19 Eliz.)
1578 (20 Eliz.)
1579 (21 Eliz.)
1580 (22 Eliz.)
1581 (23 Eliz.)
1582 (24 Eliz.)
1583 (25 Eliz.)
1584 (26 Eliz.)
1585 (27 Eliz.)
1586 (28 Eliz.)
1587 (29 Eliz.)
1588 (30 Eliz.)

January 2.

Thomas Shuxboro,

Thomas Dingeley.
Robert Knaplock,
John Aylls,
Nicholas Caplin.
John Jackson,
Bernard Cortmill,
William Staveley.
Richard Biston.
William Barwicke.
Richard Goddard.
John Crooke.
John Erington.
Andrew Studley.
Andrew Studley.
John Bullackre.

John Aylls,

Hugh Durvall.
Barnard Courtemell,
John Favor.
Robert Moore.
Richard Biston.
William Barwicke.
Richard Goddard.
Peter Janverin.
John Erington.
John Ballicar.
Andrew Studley.
Robert Russell.
Paulle Elliott.
Peter Stoner.
Thomas Goddard.

Peter Stoner, died Jan- Alexander Paynton,
uary ; John Knight,
elected January 12.6

1§89 (31 Eliz)

1590 (32 Eliz.)
1591 (33 Eliz.)
1592 (34 Eliz.)
1593 (35 Eliz.)

1594 (36 Eliz.)
1595 (37 Eliz.)
1596 (38 Eliz.)
1597 (39 Eliz.)
1598 (40 Eliz.)
1599 (41 Eliz.)
1600 (42 Eliz.)
1601 (43 Eliz.)
1602 (44 Eliz.)
1603 (1 Jas. L.)
1604 (2 Jas. 1.)
1605 (3 Jas. 1.)

John Jackson.
Thomas Holmes.

Alexander Payneton,

John Hopton.

John Exton,

Paul Ellyott.
William Wallop.
Richard Beiston,
John Jeffrye.
Thomas Lambert.
John Mayjor.

Richard Cornellius.

Edmund Aspden.

Thomas Sherwood,

William Nevey.
Robert Chambers.

John Exton.

John Hopton.

John Caplin.

Robert Crosse,’ died March 13,
1594; *Thomas_ Fashin,
elected March 28,

Lawrence Grosse.

John Jeffrye.

John Gregorie.

Thomas Lambert.

John Mayjor.

Richard Cornellis.

John Greene.

Thomas Sherewood,

William Nevie.

Robert Chambers,

John Cornishe.

Edward Barlow.

 

1 Lib, Rem. H.

2 Tables, Toiner.

3 Lib. Rem. H.

4 An under-sheriff was appointed this year, and from 1594 was appointed

regularly.

5 Tables, John Mayjor,

6 Lib, Rem. H.

7 Tid.
178

LIST OF MAYORS AND SHERIFFS.

 

Year of Taking Office,

1606 (4 Jas, I.
1607 (5 Jas. I
1608 (6 Jas, I
1609 (7 Jas. 1.
1610 (8 Jas. I
1611 (9 Jas. I
1612 (10 Jas.
1613 (11 Jas.
1614 (12 Jas.
1615 (13 Jas.
1616 (14 Jas.
1617 (15 Jas.
1618 (16 Jas.
1619 (17 Jas.
1620 (18 Jas.
1621 (19 Jas.
1622 (20 Jas.
1623 (21 Jas.
1624 (22 Jas.
1625 (1 Chas.
1626 (2 Chas.
1627 (3 Chas.
1628 (4 Chas.
1629 (5 Chas.
1630 (6 Chas.
1631 (7 Chas.
1632 (8 Chas,
1633 (9 Chas.

1634 (ro Chas,
1635 (11 Chas.
1636 (12 Chas.
1637 (13 Chas.
1638 (14 Chas,
1639 (15 Chas,
1640 (16 Chas.
1641 (17 Chas.
1642 (18 Chas.
1643 (19 Chas.
1644 (20 Chas.
1645 (21 Chas,
1646 (22 Chas.
1647 (23 Chas.
1648 (24 Chas.
1649 (1 Chas, I

1650 (2 Chas,
1651 (3 Chas,
1652 (4 Chas.
1653 (5 Chas.

DS SS SOOO Om eee”

RA eee eee Ree eee UU UU UNIT

ee Ne SSS eS SSS SEO OESEOSO Ee

mH

SS
se
Sree

Mayors.
John Cornishe.
Edward Barlow.
John Longe. ‘
Philip Toldervey.
William Wallop.
Thomas Bedford.
William Nevey.
Edward Richardes.
Arthur Baker.
John Mayjor.
John Longe.
William Merryeth.
Lawrence Prowse,
Edward Richardes.
Richard Dalbie.
George Gollop.
Peter Priaulx.
Edward Exton.
John Elzey.?
Nicholas Pescod.
Francis Knowles.
Thomas Combe.
John Clungeon,
Nathaniel Mill.
Peter Seale.
Thomas Mason.
George Gallop.
Peter Clungeon.
John Guillam.
Peter Pryaulx.
Edward Exton,
Arthur Bromfeild.
Robert Wroth.?
Henry Bracebridge.
Nicholas Pescod.
Humphrey Ryman,
Peter Seale.
Thomas Mason,
Henry Pitt.
William Stanley.
Peter Clungeon,
Peter Legay.
James Capelin.

Christopher Walleston,

Robert Wroth.?
Joseph Delamott.
Thomas Cornelius,
William Horne,

Sheriffs.

John Longe.
Philip Toldervey.
Thomas Bedford.
William Marrinell.
Christopher Cornellius.
Henry Carpenter.
Arthur Baker.
John Mayjor.
William Merryett.
George Gollop.
Richard Dalbie.
Henry Caplin, sen.
Charles Darvall.
Peter Priaulx.
Edward Exton.
*John Elzey.?
Nicholas Pescod,
Francis Knowles,
Thomas Combes.
John Clungeon,
Nathaniel Mills.
Charles Darvall.
Peter Seale.
Thomas Mason.
Peter Clungeon.
John Guillam.
John Rigges.
Barrish Daniell.
Robert Wroth.®
Henry Bracebridge.
Humphrey Ryman.
Joseph Mason.
Edward Tatenell.4
Richard Cornelius,
Henry Pitt.
Peter Legay.
John Benger,
John Benger.
John Benger.
Christopher Walleston.
James Capelin."
Thomas Cornelius,
William Horne.
Nicholas Capelin.
William Higgens,
James Clungeon.
Henry Ward.
Edward Marsh,

 

1 Roll of Mayors.
2 Tables, Wieth.
5 Roll of Mayors ; Tables, Nathan: Bachelor.

2 Tables, Eben.
4 Tables, Tatenes.
LIST OF MAYORS AND SHERIFFS.

179

 

Year of Taking Office.
1654 (6 Chas, II.)

1655 (7 Chas, IL.)
1656 (8 Chas, II.)
1657 (9 Chas, II.)
1658 (10 Chas, II.)
1659 (11 Chas, II.)
1660 (12 Chas, II.)
1661 (13 Chas, II.)
1662 (14 Chas, II.)
1663 (15 Chas. II.)
1664 (16 Chas, II.)
1665 (17 Chas, II.)
1666 (18 Chas, II.)
1667 (19 Chas. II.)
1668 (20 Chas, II.)
1669 (21 Chas, II.)
1670 (22 Chas, II.)
1671 (23 Chas, IJ.)
1672 (24 Chas. II.)
1673 (25 Chas. II.)
1674 (26 Chas, IL.)
1675 (27 Chas. II.)
1676 (28 Chas. II.)
1677 (29 Chas. II.)
1678 (30 Chas. II.)
1679 (31 Chas. II.)

1680 (32 Chas, II.)
1681 (33 Chas. II.)
1682 (34 Chas. II.)
1683 (35 Chas. II.)
1684 (36 Chas. II.)
1685 (1 Jas. II.)
1686 (2 Jas, II.)
1687 (3 Jas. II.)
1688 (4 Jas. II.)

1689 (1 Wm, & My.)

Mayors,
William Higgens,

Sheriffs.
Edward Downer.

Both mayor and sheriff deposed by order of Cromwell,

August 15, 1655, and
William Horne and Edward Marsh elected August 22,
for the rest of the year.

Henry Pitt.

James Clungeon.
Peter Seale.
Nicholas Clement,
James Capelin,
Edward Downer,
William Stanley.
Robert Richbell.
John Steptoe.
Thomas Cornelius,
Arthur Bracebridge.
James Clungeon,
William Horne.
Kingston Fryar,
John Winder.
Robert Richbell.
Richard White.

William Stanley, jun.

Jacob Ward.
Thomas Farr,
William Walliston.
James Crosse.
Alexander Hill,
John Rowte.
Edward Downer.

Christopher Smith.
John Speed, M.D.
Elias Degruchey.
James Mellish,
Thomas Cornelius.
William Bulkeley.
Alexander Alchorne,
Richard White.!
William Lyne.

John Smith,

1690 (2 Wm, & My.) John Thornburgh.
1691 (3 Wm, & My.) James Crosse.

Charles Smith,
Nicholas Clement.
William Pinhorne.
Jacob Legay.

John Steptoe.
Arthur Bracebridge.
John Tayler.
Kingston Friar.
Jacob Ward,

John Parsons,
Edward Richards,
Richard White.
William Walleston.
John St, Barbe.
Nicholas Stanley, jun.
John Loving.

John Rowte.
Alexander Hill,
Christopher Smith.
James Crosse.
Henry Norbonne.
John Rawlings.
Elias Degruche,
Richard Godfrey.
George Shergold, died.
James Mellish, elected.
Thomas Cornelius.
Alexander Alchorne,
William Lyne.

John Smith,

Robert Vernon.
Edward Elwes.
Cornelius Macham,
William Crop.
Peter Bulkeley.
William Pocock.?
Jonathan Ingles.
Thomas Everhard,

 

1 Continued in office over the year.

On Wednesday, October 24, 1688, the

king’s proclamation for restoring Corporations was read; and October 26 the

private nomination was ordered for the new election.

Friday, November 9, the

election of the mayor was ordered to be on the Friday following ; but his suc-
cessor, who was mayor e/ect on Friday, November 23, did not come into office till

December 5, 1688.

2 On refusal of Robert Culliford, who was fined £25.
180

LIST OF MAYORS AND SHERIFFS.

 

Year of Taking Office,

1692 (4 Wm, & My.) Edward Elwes,} died
February 26, 1693.

1693 (5 Wm, & My.)
1694 (6 Wm. & My.)
1695 (7 Wm, III.)
1696 (8 Wm. III.)
1697 (9 Wm, III.)
1698 (10 Wm, III.)
1699 (11 Wm, III.)
1700 (12 Wm. III.)
1701 (13 Wm. III.)
1702 (1 Anne)

1703 (2 Anne)

1704 (3 Anne)

1705 (4 Anne)

1706 (5 Anne)

1707 (6 Anne)

1708 (7 Anne)

1709 (8 Anne)

1710 (9 Anne)

1711 (10 Anne)
1712 (rx Anne)
1713 (12 Anne)
1714 (1 Geo, I,
1715 (2 Geo,
1716 (3 Geo.
1717 (4 Geo,
1718 (5 Geo.
1719 (6 Geo,
1720 (7 Geo,
1721 (8 Geo,
1722 (9 Geo,

ee

Nee eee Se

1723 (10 Geo, I.)
1724 (11 Geo, I.)
1725 (12 Geo. 1.)
1726 (13 Geo. 1.)
1727 (1 Geo. II.)
1728 (2 Geo,
1729 (3 Geo.
1730 (4 Geo.
1731 (5 Geo,
1732 (6 Geo.
1733 (7 Geo,
1734 (8 Geo.
1735 (9 Geo. II.)
1736 (10 Geo. II.)

! Journal,

Mayors,

Christopher Smith,
Robert Vernon.

John Speed, M.D.
Cornelius Macham.

William Cropp, M.D,

Elias Degruchey.
Peter Bulkeley.
Jonathan Ingles.
James Mellish.
Thomas Cornelius.

Thomas Bracebridge.

Thomas Rice.
John Thornburgh,
Aaron de Veulle.
Richard White.
Arthur Atherley,
Charles Smith.
William Godfrey,
Andrew Webb.
Thomas Cornelius,
Francis Gardiner.
John Thornburgh,
John Grove,
Richard White.
Edmund Moody.
Arthur Atherley.
Charles Smith.
Thomas Ingles.
William Godfrey.
William Cornelius.

Thomas Cornelius,? died

June 1, 1723.

Roger Andrew, elected

June 12.
Francis Gardiner.
John Ayres,
Francis Cabot.
John Grove,
Leonard Cropp.
Thomas Ingles.
William Reade.
Roger Andrews.
George Shergold,
Richard Raymond.
Arthur Bracebridge.
Richard Taunton.
William White.
Richard Atherley.

Sheriffs.
David Widdall.

Thomas Bracebridge,
Thomas Rice.
John Winter.
Aaron de Veuile.
Daniel Veal.
Richard White.
Jacob Ward.
Charles Smith.
Samuel Downes.
William Godfrey.
Andrew Webb.
Richard Smith.
Thomas Macham.
Francis Gardiner,
John Grove,
Edmund Mocdy.

‘Roger Andrews.

Earlesman Richey.
William Smith,
Thomas Ingles.
George Bussell.
William Cornelius.
John Ayres.
Francis Cabot.
Thomas Wells.
Francis Andrews.
Leonard Cropp.
William Reade.
Charles Reade.
Richard Raymund.

Arthur Bracebridge.
Richard Taunton.
Robert Vernon.
William White.
Richard Atherley,
Robert Sadleir.
Richard Purbeck.
Thomas Cornelius.
George Barton.
Robert Ballard.
Francis Cabot, jun.
Joseph Ward,
Arthur Atherley, jun.
John Herring.

 

2 Journal,
 

LIST OF MAYORS AND SHERIFFs. ISI
Year of Taking Office. Mayors. Sheriffs.
II.) Leonard Cropp. Richard Serle.

1737 (11 Geo,
1738 (12 Geo.
1739 (13 Geo.
1740 (14 Geo,
1741 (15 Geo,
1742 (16 Geo,
1743 (17 Geo,
1744 (18 Geo,
1745 (19 Geo.
1746 (20 Geo,
1747 (21 Geo,
1748 (22 Geo.
1749 (23 Geo,
1750 (24 Geo.
1751 (25 Geo.
1752 (26 Geo,
1753 (27 Geo,
1754 (28 Geo.
1755 (29 Geo.
1756 (30 Geo,
1757 (31 Geo,
1758 (32 Geo,
1759 (33 Geo.
1760 (34 Geo.

1761 (1 Geo,
1762 (2 Geo.
1763 (3 Geo.
1764 (4 Geo.
1765 (5 Geo,
1766 (6 Geo.
1767 (7 Geo.
1768 (8 Geo,
1769 (9 Geo.

1770 (10 Geo.
(11 Geo,
(12 Geo,
(13 Geo.
1774 (14 Geo,
(15 Geo.
31776 (16 Geo,
(17 Geo,
(18 Geo.
1779 (19 Geo.
(20 Geo,
(21 Geo,
(22 Geo.
(23 Geo.
1784 (24 Geo,
25 Geo.
. TIT.

L771
1772
1773

1775

1777
1778

1780
1781
1782
1783

1785
1786

1788

1789 (29 Geo.

(
(

1787 (27 Geo.
( _ UI

i)
II.)
II.)
11.)
TL}
Ti)
IL)
IL.)
IL.)
IL.)
IL.)
I1.)
IL)
II.)
II.)
II.)
Il.)
IL.)
IL.)

ITI,
Ill.
IIT.
IIT.
II].
Ill.
Ill.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

III.)

UL.

)
)

William Freeman.

Robert Sadleir.

Richard Purbeck,

Robert Ballard.

Richard Raymond,
Richard Taunton,
Arthur Atherley.

William White.
William Knight,

Richard Atherley.

Robert Sadleir.

Richard Purbeck,

Robert Ballard,
Leonard Cropp.

William Purbeck,
Edmund Moody.
Arthur Atherley,
George West, Captain.
William Knight.

Richard Serle.

Edmund Ludlow.
William Freeman,
Richard Vernon Sadleir.

Leonard Cropp.

George Robinson.
William Purbeck,
Edmund Moody.

Henry Hartley.
Richard Serle.

Thomas Guillaume.
Edmund Ludlow.

John Bridger.
Edward Noble.

Richard Vernon Sadleir.
Samuel Miller, jun.
George Robinson.

John Monkton, M.D.

Henry Hartley.

Robert Ballard, jun.
Samuel Figgal Reade.
Clement Hilgrove,
Thomas Guillaume.

Thomas Mears.
Edward Noble.

Richard Vernon Moody,

Arthur Atherley,
John Monkton,
John Mullins.
Robert Ballard,

Samuel Figgal Reade,

Thomas Mears,

Clement Hilgrove,

William Knight.
George Hammond,
Leonard Cropp, jun.
John Wheeler,
William Purbeck.
Edmund Moody.
William Lowder.
Richard Searle.
Edmund Ludlow.
John Langford,
Samuel Saunders.
Thomas Hasker.
Richard Vernon Sadleir.
George Robinson,
Josiah Smith.
Richard Ayres.
Peter Spinks,
Thomas Guillaume.
Thomas Guillaume.
Gideon Tabuteau.
John Bridger.
Edward Noble,
Samuel Miller.
John Monkton, M.D,
Thomas Abraham,
George Miller.
William Jolliffe.
Arthur Hammond.
Robert Ballard.
William Seward,
John Brysault,
Clement Hilgrove,
Thomas Mears,
Richard Vernon Moody
Arthur Atherley.
John Mullins,
Henry Ward,
William Bulkeley.
Samuel Blount.
Thomas Guillaume.
Edward Noble.
John Monkton.
Arthur Atherley,
Robert Ballard.
Clement Hilgrove.
Samuel Blount.
Thomas Mears,
Clement Hilgrove.
Richard Vernon Moody.
Thomas Durell.

Sir Yelverton Peyton, Bart,
William Smith,
182

LIST OF MAYORS AND SHERIFFS.

 

Year of Taking Office.

1790 (30 Geo,
1791 (31 Geo.

1792 (32 Geo,
1793 (33 Geo.
1794 (34 Geo.
1795 (35 Geo.

1796 (36 Geo.

1797 (37 Geo.

1798 (38 Geo.

1799 (39 Geo.

1800 (40 Geo.

1801 (41 Geo.

1802 (42 Geo.
1803 (43 Geo.
1804 (44 Geo.

1805 (45 Geo,

1806 (46 Geo,
1807 (47 Geo,
1808 (48 Geo,

1809 (49 Geo.

1810 (50 Geo,
18rr (51 Geo,
1812 (52 Geo,
1813 (53 Geo.
1814 (54 Geo,
1815 (55 Geo.
1816 (56 Geo,

1817 (57 Geo
1818 (58 Geo
1819 (59 Geo.
1820 (1 Geo,
1821 (2 Geo,
1822 (3 Geo.
1823 (4 Geo.
1824 (5 Geo,
1825 (6 Geo,
1826 (7 Geo,
1827 (8 Geo,
1828 (9 Geo,

1829 (10 Geo. IV.) Philip Carteret Fall,

1830 (1 Wm. I John Rushworth Keele,

1831 (2 Wm,
1832 (3 Wm.
1833 (4 Wm.
1834 (5 Wm.
1835 (6 Wm.
1836 (6 Wm.

IIL.)
III.)

IIL.)
II1.)
IIL)
iT)

III.)
IIL.)
Ii.)
111.)

ih)

IIL.)
III.)
IIL.)
IIL.)
III.)
IIL.)
IIL.)
III.)

IIL.)
III.)
III.)
IIL.)
III.)
IIL)
IIL)
III.)
: AL)
» 111.)
y TIT),
IV.)
IV.)
IV.)
IV.)
IV.)
IV.)
IV.)
IV.)
IV.)

V.)
IV.)
IV.)
IV.)
IV.)
IV.)
IV.)

Mayors,
Thomas Durell.

Sheriffs.
John Butler Harrison,

Sir Yelverton Peyton, Sir John Collins, Knight, Captain.

Bart.
William Smith,
John Mullins,

John Butler Harrison,
D’Auvergne,

James
General,

Alexander Scott, Admiral,
Arthur Atherley,

Thomas Durell,

Sir Yelverton Peyton,

Bart.
Nathaniel
Colonel,

Frederick Breton,
Alexander Scott, Admiral,
Frederick Breton.

Thomas Durell,
William Smith,

Samuel Silver Taylor,

John Rowcliffe,

Sir Yelverton Peyton,

Bart,
William Lintott.

Samuel Silver Taylor,
John Butler Harrison.
William Edward Jolliffe,

John Rowcliffe.

Richard Eldridge.
William Lintott.

George Atherley.
William Edward Jolliffe.
Walter Raleigh Smith,
Richard Eldridge.

Stephen Lintott,

George Atherley.
John Rushworth Keele,
Richard Eldridge.

Stephen Lintott.

Samuel Le Feuvre.

John Jolliffe.
Joseph Lomer,
James Bovill.

William Oke.
John Jolliffe.
Stephen Judd,

Heywood,

James D’Auvergne, General,
Bercher Barill.

Alexander Scott, Admiral.
Nathaniel Heywood, Colonel.

Frederick Breton.
Richard Light.
Joseph Bishop,
Valentine Fitzhugh.

Philip Seward.

William Lomer.
William Smith,
Samuel Silver Taylor.
John Rowcliffe.
Andrew Williams,
William Tinling,
William Lintott.
John Brice,

William Edward Jolliffe.
Richard Eldridge.
George Atherley.
Walter Raleigh Smith,
Thomas Vavasour Durell,
Stephen Lintott.

John Sadleir Moody.
John Rushworth Keele.
Stephen Lintott.
Samuel Le Feuvre.
John Jolliffe,

Joseph Lomer,

Wilson Lomer,

James Bovill.

Philip Carteret Fall,
William Oke,

Richard D. Pritchard,
Martin Maddison,
Stephen Judd.

William Le Feuvre.
Peter Rainier.

Peter Breton,

William Ward.

John Rushworth Keele,
Joseph Lomer,

William James Le Feuvre, James Bovill.
William James Le Feuvre, James Bovill.
Peter Breton, from Janu- George Hunt.

ary Ito November 9,
LIST OF MAYORS AND SHERIFFS. 183

 

Year of Taking Office.
1836 (7 Wm. IV.)

1837 (1 Vict.)
1838 (2 Vict.)
1839 (3 Vict.)
1840 (4 Vict.)
1841 (5 Vict.)
1842 (6 Vict.)
1843 (7 Vict.)
1844 (8 Vict.)
1845 (9 Vict.)
1846 (10 Vict.)
1847 (11 Vict.)
1848 (12 Vict.)
1849 (13 Vict.)
1850 (14 Vict.)
1851 (15 Vict.)
1852 (16 Vict.)
1853 (17 Vict.)
1854 (18 Vict.)
1855 (19 Vict.)
1856 (19 Vict.)

1856 (20 Vict.)

1857 (21 Vict.)
1858 (22 Vict.)
1859 (23 Vict.)
1860 (24 Vict.)
1861 (25 Vict.)
1862 (26 Vict.)
1863 (27 Vict.)
1864 (28 Vict.)
1865 (29 Vict.)
1866 (30 Vict.)

1867 (31 Vict.)
1868 (32 Vict.)

1869 (33 Vict.)
1870 (34 Vict.)
1871 (35 Vict.)
1872 (36 Vict.)

Mayors.

Charles Du Cane.

Joseph Lobb,
Joseph Bernard.
Peter Breton.
Joseph Lobb,
Peter Dickson,
Edward Mayes,

George Henderson.

Thomas Griffith.
Joseph Lobb.

‘William James Le Feuvre,

Daniel Brooks,
George Laishley.

Richard Andrews,
Richard Andrews.
Richard Andrews.
Joseph Lankester.
John Traffells Tucker.

Sampson Payne.
Sampson Payne,

Sheriffs.
Samuel Silver Taylor.
Thomas Griffith,
William Hooke Steere.
John Hole.
Joseph Rankin Stebbing.
Abraham Abraham.
Henry Fricker.
Richard Coles.
Joseph Ball.
John Aslatt.
Henry Brett.
Joseph Lankester.
Richard Andrews.
John Traffells Tucker.
Sampson Payne.
James Blatch,
William Aldridge.
Richard Coles,
James Caldecott Sharp.
John White.

John Traffells Tucker, ap-
pointed deputy-mayor
May 10; Sampson
Payne, died May 22 ;
Richard Andrews,
elected May 31.

Richard Andrews, re- Ebenezer Williams.
signed December 22 ;
John White, elected
December 26.

John White,

Edward Palk,

Frederick Perkins,

Richard Coles,

Frederick Perkins, Thomas Bowman,

Frederick Perkins, George Simon Brinton.

George Simon Brinton. David Davis.

Thomas Bowman. Samuel Michael Emanuel.

Samuel Michael Emanuel. Rolles Driver.

Samuel Michael Emanuel. Charles Bromley, died July 4,

1867; Thomas Bowman,
elected October 7.

Joseph Rankin Stebbing, William Furber.

Joseph Rankin Stebbing, Edward Mayes.
paid finefor not accept-
ing office; Frederick
Perkins, elected Nov.
20,

Frederick Perkins.

Thomas Pibble Payne.

Henry Joseph Buchan.

William Hickman,

John Richard King,
Charles Copeland.
James Ricketts Weston.
John Carter.

George Dunlop.

Arthur Andrews.

Robert Jennings.

Edwin Jones, resigned November
10, 1873.
position.

aolu-
nts.

184 THE RECORDER.

 

Year of Taking Office. Mayors, Sheriffs.

1873 (37 Vict.) Edwin Jones. William Gamlen.

1874 (38 Vict.) George Mason Passenger, Stephen Seward Pearce.

1875 (39 Vict.) Edwin Jones, William Henry Rogers, resigned
November 9, 1876.

1876 (40 Vict.) Henry Abraham. John Emilius Le Feuvre.

1877 (41 Vict.) Alfred Leighton M‘Cal- George Thomas Harper.

mont,

1878 (42 Vict.) John Blount Thomas. _ Rolles Driver,

1879 (43 Vict.) William Henry Rogers, Edward Bance.

1880 (44 Vict.) John Henry Cooksey. James Seward Pearce.

1881 (45 Vict.) William Henry Davis, John Davis Barford.

1882 (46 Vict.) William Henry Davis. John Miller. i)

Of the Recorder.

2. “It is probable that they always had the assistance of a lawyer
“in their business, by whatever title they called him: perhaps the same
‘person executed the offices of recorder and town-clerk before their
“ charters distinguished those offices. The ‘ person skilled in the law,’
“appointed in a judicial capacity by the charter 1 Edward IV. [see
“ under ‘ Courts’], was certainly a recorder in the same sense as we now
*‘ use the term, though not called by that name; but the office appears
“ by that charter to have been annual.

“Though the deposition or removal of the recorder be supposed
“and implied in the charter (16 Car. I.), yet the manner of doing it is
“not directed. However, it has been done, for [Dec. 5] 1651, Mr.
“ Hildesly wrote to the Corporation to choose a new recorder, which
“ being communicated to Mr. Levingston, the then recorder, he agreed
“to it, and John Lisle, Lord Commissioner, was chosen; but
“ (Dec. 9] 1658, Mr. Levingston brought a writ of restitution from
“the Upper Bench, and the next year he was restored in obedience
“to that writ, and John Lisle quitted.

“In 1703 the recordership was declared void by the absence of
“ Roger Mompesson, Esq., and his not attending to the town business.

“The recorder was formerly expected to reside in the town, and
““ Mr, Penruddoke signed a promise in the Journal always to reside here
“in the vacation.”

In 1457 the recorder’s wages were £5 per annum; he had also, as
was usual, his livery gown at Christmas, made of five yards of ‘ muster-
dyvelyg’ at 38. 4d. the yard. This continued to be his payment for
a considerable period.

“In 1649 it was ordered that the recorder be allowed £20 year for
“his house-rent, so long as he should live in the town. In 1688 it was
“ determined that his fee should be £5 ayear. But there are frequent
“instances mentioned in the Journals of presents of wine being made
“to the recorders on account of their trouble in attending the law-
THE RECORDER. 185

“suits of the town. They formerly had constantly a new year’s gift
“sent them of sugar, spice, wine, or olives.”

Zhe Oath of the Recorder.

“You shall be faithful and true to our Sovereign Lord the King of England Oath.
“and his heirs, Kings or Queens of England, You shall minister common right
“ after the common law of England, and the laudable customs of this town, to
“every person that shall duly require the same, as well to poor as to rich. You
“ shall also true counsel give unto the Mayor and his brethren to your power, and
“their counsel you shall well and truly keep, and not be absent from them at such
“places and times as you should personally give your attendance without the
“licence of the Mayor, or that you be otherwise reasonably occasioned. And
““as well all these things as all other things that to your office of Recorder of this
“ town shall or doth belong, as near as you can, you shall truly do and execute.
“ So help you God.”

The duties of the recorder are now regulated under the consoli-
dating Act of 1882.

List of Recoriers.

“ John Ingoldesby held the office in 23 Hen. VI. 1444.” Occupants.

Richard Palshid, in 22 Hen. VII. 1507 (see under ‘ Town-Clerk’).

“ John Mille, in 37 Hen. VIII., 1547 (Leland’s ‘ Itinerary ’).

“ Thomas Mylle, in 7 Ed. VI. 1553.

“ James Brande,” in 2 & 3 Ph. & Mary, 1555.

“ Mr. Hooper, in 12 Eliz., 1569.

“ John Penruddoke, in 14 Eliz., 1571.”

Thomas Fleming 1 (afterwards Knight), Solicitor-General, in 43 Eliz., 1601; resigned
December 1603.

“ Robert [William +] Brock,” on resignation of last, 1 Jas. I., 1603.

“ Thomas Clerke,? in 9 Jas. I., 1611.

“ Henry Sherfield, in 15 Jas. I.,” 1617-18 ; elected January 30 ; sworn February 16.

‘‘ Robert Mason, in 9 Chas. I., 1633; Recorder of Winchester; soon after of
London.

“ Thomas Levingston, in 10 Chas. I., 1635,” on death of Mason, by recommenda-
tion of King Charles ; resigned (see above) December 1651.

“ John Lisle, Lord Commissioner,” December 20, 1651; sworn and admitted
September 16, 1652 ; resigned April 1, 1659.

“ Thomas Levingston,” restored April 6, 1659, in obedience to writ of Richard
Cromwell, dated November 29, 1658.

“ Roger Gollop,” elected September 29, 1662 (14 Car. II.)

“ Giles Eyre, of Brickworth, 33 Chas. II., 1681,” elected May 6, on death of last ;
admitted and sworn August 16, same year.

‘ John Wyndham, 2 Wm. & Mary, 1690,” elected October 4, vice Sir Giles Eyre
resigned ; sworn October Io.

“ Thomas Wyndham, of Lincoln’s Inn, 8 Wm. & Mary, 1696,” elected July 6, vice
last resigned ; admitted and sworn July 13.

“ Roger Mompesson, of Lincoln’s Inn, 10 Wm. & Mary, 1698,” on death of last ;
admitted and sworn May 9.

 

1 See Burgesses’ Book. ? Dr. Speed has Cheeke.
wn-
tks and
oir

ice,

186 THE TOWN-CLERK.

 

“ Robert Eyre, of Lincoln’s Inn (afterwards Chief-Justice),” 2 Anne, 1703, on dis-
missal of last ; elected June 14; sworn September 3, same year.
“Robert Eyre, son of the former, on his father’s resignation, 9 Geo. I.,” 1723,

elected July 26, vice Sir Robert Eyre, resigned.
“ William Eyre, serjeant-at-law, 16 Geo. II.,” 1742, elected October 22, vice
Honourable Robert Eyre, resigned ; sworn the same day ; also sworn J.P.

and Common Council-man.
“ Cranley Thomas Kerby,” 5 Geo. III., 1765, elected and sworn September 6; died

June 7, 1800.
Charles Hilgrove Hammond, barrister-at-law, elected September 12; sworn

recorder and J.P. September 18, 1800; resigned October 25, 1830.
Peregrine Bingham, of the Middle Temple, barrister-at-law, elected November 5 ;

sworn December Io, 1830.

Alexander James Edmund Cockburn, of the Middle Temple, barrister-at-law,
elected July 26, 1840; afterwards Lord Chief-Justice.

Edmund Smirke, afterwards knight, succeeded Sir Alexander Cockburn, August

13, 1846.
William Major Cooke, succeeded Mr. Smirke, October 19, 1860.
Montagu Beere, appointed in succession to last, July 7, 1862.
Thomas Gunner, in succession to Mr. Beere, October 31, 1870; died March 3,

1883.
Alfred Henry Say Stonehouse-Vigor, late recorder of Penzance, took the oath and

made the declaration prescribed, April 11, 1883.

Of the Town-Clerk.

3. “ There is little said of the town-clerk in the ancient books of
“ the town, but in one of them (1570) he is called clerk of the records
“ of the town, which seems to be expressive of his office, the recorder
“ being keeper of the records.”

It will be convenient to give an account of the office under such
notices as occur of its occupants.

In 1315 (g Ed. II.) William Fowell received a bushel of wheat
from God’s House for professional assistance.

John le Barbur (15 Ed. II., 1321) received a quarter of wheat under
similar circumstances.t

John Fysch, held office in 1365 (39 Ed. ITI.)?

John Giles (1457, 36 Hen. VI.) has ‘ five yerds of musterdyvelyg’
for his gown. The wages of the town-clerk, as of the recorder, were
£5 per annum, with a varying sum for paper and parchment and
ink?

Watkyn or Water Latham (9 Ed. IV., 1469), on May 22d he rode
with the king to Chichester on town business,

 

1 God’s House Computus, under years,

2 Deed of Roger Mascall.

® Steward’s Books. The following particulars, unless otherwise specified,
are derived from the Steward’s Books and Journals under dates.
THE TOWN-CLERK. 187

 

William Overey, chosen September 15, 1473 (12 Ed. IV.), also
sheriff; he was the translater of the Paxbread (see p. 132).

William West (1 Hen. VII., 1486), wages for one quarter of a year,
twenty-five shillings.

William Erneley (1 Hen. VII., 1486), wages for three quarters of
a year, £3, 15s.; he continued in office at least till 1501.

Richard Palshed, December 1502 (18 Hen. VII.), also styled
recorder,

John Mylles (4 Hen. VIII., 1512-13), see under ‘ Recorder.’

John Knight, resigned in March 1562-63, recommending as his
successor Robert Knaplock.

Robert Knaplock (5 Eliz., 1563).

Richard Waterton, town-clerk, appointed, September 1568, to act
as under-sheriff till Mr. Turner, who had been elected high sheriff,
returned from beyond seas.

Thomas Lark, clerk to the Honourable Sir Francis Walsingham,
Knight, elected (26 Eliz., 1584) to succeed as town-clerk on the death
of Waterton, an event then expected.

John Friar, notary public and clerk of the records, town-clerk (43
Eliz., 1601), was holding office in December 1608.

Richard Pidgeon was in office January 1609-10 (7 Jas. I.)

Edward Phillater (13 Jas. I., 1615), then town-clerk, complaining
of oysters being dredged within the haven by fishermen of Weston and
others, obtains the monopoly of all the oyster-beds, on the under-
standing that he is to serve the town with good oysters at two pence
the hundred at most, to keep the haven in good order, and to bring in
five hundred oysters for the mayor’s annual fish dinner.

“In 1639 (14 Chas. I.) Mr, Pittis was chosen on condition that
“he pay £40 a year to the town as long as he enjoys the place, and
** shall not go forth of the town without the mayor’s licence. Ordered
“ likewise that the town-clerk be new chosen and new sworn every
“year. In (September) 1646 notice was given to the town-clerk to
“‘ void his place, it being held only during pleasure.”

Richard Stanley, elected July 8, 1648 (24 Chas. I.) The recorder
having claimed #5 for coming to Southampton to the election, was
refused by the House on the ground that his salary of #5 per annum.
was to cover expenses.

Mr. Nutley, 1653 (5 Chas. II.), refused a deputy in May 1654;
and, June 5, “voted to be discharged for not attending in person
“upon the duty of his office. [The above order was revoked and] notice
“was given him, August 10, to attend in person, and reside in town by

 

1 Compare Merewether and Stephens’ History of Boroughs, pp. xlvi, 1346.
188 THE TOWN-CLERK,

 

‘September 15;” but in December William Hancock was deputy,
and so remained till the election of a new town-clerk,

Francis Coles, elected January 19, 1657-58, with the consent,
though without the presence, of Commissioner Lisle, the recorder;
the late town-clerk (Nutley) being unable to reside in the town owing
to his great business. He was sworn and admitted January 22.

Allan Lockhart, March 1659-60 (12 Chas. II.); he resigned Octo-
ber 15, 1660, completing his resignation November 12, and recom-
mending his successor.

Henry Clifford, of Lincoln’s Inn, November 12, 1660. Of late
years the office had been in an unsettled state,

“Tn 1668-69 (20 Chas. II.) Mr. Ferdinand Knapton was chosen
“« [January 15] town-clerk, on condition that he should accept such
“terms as the Corporation would offer him. When he heard these he
“ refused to accept them, and his election was declared void. He brought
“a mandamus [Mav 9, 1699] for his admission, but without effect.”

Mr. Pocock was elected January 22, 1668-69 (20 Chas. II.) ; ad-
mitted and sworn July 3. In March 1673-74 he was required to resign,
“ because his other business took him off from his attendance on the
“ affairs of the Corporation.”

“In 1699 (11 Will. IIT.), ordered that Mr. William Pocock do show
“ cause why he should not be removed from his office for non-attendance
“ at the town courts and for not entering the records, and for setting the
** mayor’s name without his leave to the return of a writ of error. I do
“not find what the issue of this was. In 1699 a letter was sent to Mr.
“ Swanton, clerk of assize, asserting the town’s right for their town-
“clerk to officiate in the commission of oyer and terminer as clerk,
“without the clerk of assize. This was probably a special commission
“for the town, which was customary at that time; but now (since
“1725) the town is put into the Western Circuit when they have any
“assize business, and one of the judges comes hither, and of course
** brings the clerk of assize with him.

“In 1701 (13 Will. III.) Mr. Richard Beel was chosen [September
“ 20], on the death of last, on condition of residing in the town with
“his whole family,” requiring no salary, and not absenting himself
above nine or ten days each term.

“John Knapton, appointed” July 9, 1707 (6 Anne), to act till
Michaelmas; elected town-clerk September 30, 1708, proposing to
execute the office gratis, only receiving the usual perquisites, and to
collect the rents, &c., leaving his reward to the discretion of the Cor-
poration. “In 1718, Mr. Knapton being in a declining state of health,
“Mr. John Godfrey, his clerk, was admitted as deputy [June 20], and
““ was sworn to keep the secrets of the Common Council.”
THE TOWN-CLERK. 189

 

“In 1729-30 [January 1], 2 Geo. II., John Godfrey was chosen on
Mr. Knapton’s death; to have no salary, nor to practise in the town
court as attorney, directly or indirectly. Mr. Godfrey grew very
infirm the latter part of his term, and Samuel Figgal Reade was
admitted to be his deputy.”

“Tn 1767 (7 Geo. IIT.) Charles Le Gay was chosen [February 2],
‘on death of Jast.

“Tn 1774 (14 Geo. IIT.) William Daman was chosen [March 5],
on death of Le Gay,” and sworn April 5, 1774.

Thomas Ridding, on death of last, chosen March 27, 1787; sworn
April 20, 1787; appointed steward of court leet, April 3, 1789.

William Curry, appointed March 13, 1804, on the death of last ;
sworn March 23 the same year.

Thomas Ridding, May 7, 1810, on the death of Curry, elected and
sworn before the recorder, May 12 ; steward of the court leet, May 29,
1810. Mr. Ridding guided the Corporation through the critical period
which preceded the Municipal Corporation Reform Act of 1835, re-
ceiving a special vote of thanks, December that year; he resigned
August 1838.

Charles Edward Deacon, of the town and county of Southampton,
attorney-at-law, was appointed August 16, 1838.

Richard Seward Pearce, of the town and county of Southampton,
solicitor, on resignation of last, appointed July 6, 1870.

Previously to the Act of 1835, the town-clerk was appointed by
the mayor, recorder, aldermen, and Common Council; and under that
Act (as by the present, 1882) by the Council, that is, the mayor, alder-
men, and councillors, to hold during pleasure, but he must not be himself
a member of the Council.

oc

ce

ce

a

(<4

“ The Oath of the Town-Clerk.

“You shall be faithful and true to the King of England and his heirs, Kings
“and Queens of England; you shall see that true records are kept, and due
“ processes made between party and party, and true judgments in their suits to be
“ given, as nigh as you can, in the Mayor and Bailiffs’ behalf. If ye be required,
“ye shall minister common right after the common law of England and the
* laudable customs of this town to every person that here will sue, as well poor as
“rich. And also true counsel you shall give to the Mayor and his brethren to
“your power, and their counsel shall well and truly keep: and not be absent
“ from them at such places and times, without licence of the Mayor, or otherwise
“ reasonably occasioned, as you should usually give your attendance. And all
“ other things that to your office belongeth, as near as you can, you shalldo. So
“ help you God.”

No declaration is now required by law of the town-clerk,
rualifica-
ons and
imission,

esidence.

dmission
n special
2usons,

190 THE BURGESSES.

 

Of the Burgesses.

The burgesses were originally the free resident householders, enrolled
in the borough court, and bearing their part in the public burdens both
as to taxation and duties. But from an early period irregularities
occurred in their appointment al extra, Thus, among many instances,
in 1303 royal letters patent granted the right of burgesses at South-
ampton to John de London of Bordeaux, and in 1312 extended them
to his wife Blanche, and their sons and daughters in every particular.?

“The charter gives so little direction relating to the burgesses that
“ most things relating to them depend upon practice and bye-laws or
“ orders in their Journals, and regard chiefly their election and dis-
“ franchisement.

1. “And first of their election. The eldest son of a burgess has a right
“ to succeed his father ; see ‘Laws of the Guild’ (Ord. 9), where this
“ig extended to the next heir.” Such eldest son or next heir was
sometimes admitted in his father’s or uncle’s lifetime, when however he
paid a fine, which was often remitted ; other sons of a guildsman were
admitted on payment of a fine of ten shillings, which was also frequently
excused (Ord. 10).

Residence was required of burgesses, who forfeited their position if
absent from the town for a year and a day, though sometimes this
requirement was dispensed with. In December 1485 (1 Hen. VII.)
Robert Reynold was admitted on condition of dwelling within the town.
In 1508 (24 Hen. VII.) F. Baudewyne was admitted ‘because he did
promise himself to inhabit within the towne.’ In 1510 (2 Hen. VIII.)
Nic. Seggewike was ‘ disgrated’ because he was not dwelling within the
town within a year and a day after summons, according to the custom
of thetown. Others were ‘discharged from the Guild’ because they
were ‘no inhabiters’ or ‘not dwelling within’ the town; sometimes
such were readmitted on a fine, presumably upon their becoming resi-
dent. In 1579 (21 Eliz.) a burgess, ‘ according to the ancient custom
of this town,’ was ‘disgraded for that he hath been dwelling out of the
said town about twelve months and a day.’

Admissions to burgess-ship were granted frequently for special
reasons.

In 1508 (23 Hen. VII.) Harvey Hayward had also part of his fine
remitted ‘for that he shall dwell within the town and bea helper as
he may,’ that is, with ships and boats. In 1509 (1 Hen. VIII.) Richard
Kene was admitted by common consent, but with sad reflection on the
good people about—‘ because he is an honest man and good of name.’

 

1 Pat. 31 Ed. I. m. 443 6 Ed. ID. po, m.12; 18 Ed. II. p, 2, m. 17.
THE BURGESSES., IgQI

 

John Orpit, Vicar of St. Michael’s, was admitted into the Guild, 1510
(2 Hen. VIII.), by common assent, * because he hath always been a helper
of the town. At the same time John Wilcok, D.D., Vicar of Holy
Rood, was admitted. In 1520 (July, 12 Hen. VIII.), John Millet, of
the Isle of Wight, was admitted on his promising to reside in the town,
and victualling the town with his fish. In 35 Hen. VIII. (1543) a
couple of barber-surgeons were admitted free, on the understanding
that they were to be ‘ready at the commandment of the mayor and
burgesses and their successors, to exercise their craft or science when
need shall require without excess taking for the same.’ A certain
William Bowyer, gentleman, was admitted gratis in August 1557,
because he had ‘ married an alderman’s wife’ and was altogether well
thought of in the town. The admission to burgess-ship was exercised
in an arbitrary fashion. In 1545 it was agreed by a majority of the
aldermen and burgesses that no more Guernsey and Jersey men should
be admitted without a distinct vote. On this and some other points the
court leet jury of 1550 were peremptory: ‘ And yf ye refuse this to do,
we will ye stryke al] our names owt of y bookes, and so comyt all the
charges of the towne into y" handes. We speake not this for nothinge,
but for theire occupyinge and craft wilbe the decaye of our occupyinge.’

It seems that a few years later the making of burgesses ‘for
friendship’ had become too common, and was said to have lowered the
office in public estimation ; hence, in 1561 (3 Eliz., September 15), it
was ordered that the fine for burgess-ship should be #10, ‘ except
prentices, or such that be men of honour and worship, that shall so
request for their pleasure, for no gain of the petty customs, and men’s
children which ought of right to inherit their father’s room, according
to the Paxbread.’

The practice having obtained of admitting ‘ gentlemen and others’ Gentlemer
into the ‘fellowship of freemen or burgesses,? without their being asain
obliged to undertake the offices of constable, steward, or bailiff, but
enabled at once to advance to the dignity of sheriff and so of mayor,
the court leet in 1600 presented this grievance and prayed a remedy.

Half a century later the town offices could scarcely be filled for lack Lack of
of burgesses. In 1652 the court leet presented that the jury of that im
court had, by ancient custom, consisted of burgesses only, descending in
order from the high sheriff, who should be foreman, but that for want
of a sufficient number of burgesses, not only was that service in danger
of being neglected, but the other offices of the town, which should
devolve on burgesses alone. They prayed, therefore, ‘that men able
and capable of the office of burgess-ship be elected,’ and fined on their
refusing to serve.

A similar complaint of lack of burgesses was made by the town
192 THE BURGESSES.

 

B60, council after the Restoration. It was therefore ordered (September 12,
1660), that all such resident inhabitants within the town as the mayor
and Common Council should think fit to nominate gratis as serving
burgesses within the next six months should accept the position under
a penalty of £20."

Vhen and In January 1675-76 it was ordered that residents and traders living

eae elsewhere should only be admitted as burgesses on a Friday, the usual
meeting day of the Common Council, and only in the Audit-house, in
presence of the council after due notice ; but any noble or gentle man
desiring to be made a burgess might be admitted any time in a House
summoned for the purpose. A similar order was repeated subsequently.

In 1707 it was “ordered that no person shall be sworn a burgess

“ until he shall first be proposed to the Common Council duly summoned

“ and assembled, and the whole community be called on to give their

“ consent ; and any persons chosen contrary to this order, their election

“to be deemed void. a.p. 1730, the charters being silent concerning

“the election of burgesses, it is ordered unanimously that only the

ind by “ Common Council havea right to vote, and that every burgess be pro-

We. d at the Common Council six days at least before his election, or

posed a J ;
“ his election to be void. Buta nobleman may be sworn at a common
“ council without such notice if nine at least be present. This order is
“ observed still [i.e., c. 1770].

dismissal. (2.) “Disfranchisement, in its largest sense, signifies being deprived

“ of the freedom of the town, which was formerly attended to here with
“ as much punctuality as it continues to be in the City of London ; but
“at present it is understood to mean only being disburgessed or ex-
“ pelled the Corporation.”

oa In 1495 (11 H. VII.) Griffyn Alcocke, who had been admitted
freely as the eldest son of his deceased father, was ‘disgrated’ for
assault on Jermain Griffith, whom ‘he did streke with his fiste.’ Those
who had been disgrated were frequently readmitted on payment of a
fine. Offences against the peace by fist, sword, or dagger, as laid down
in the Paxbread, were constantly visited with expulsion.

ee “ a.p. 1558 [May 30, 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary], two burgesses were

ae “expelled the Corporation for publishing a protestation against the

‘  “ mayor and aldermen taxing the town without calling the rest of the
“ burgesses.
“a.p. 1565, a burgess was disfranchised for saying that the
“ Corporation made laws against reason and conscience ; another for
“ colouring strangers’ goods (see Laws of the Guild, Ord. 30).

n

 

1 In 1689 Thomas Bernard, grocer, was fined £50 for refusing to be sworn
a burgess,
THE BURGESSES. 193

 

“A.D. 1570, a burgess was disfranchised for calling another bur- Abuse.
“ gess a knave (see Laws, Ord. 15).

“ap. 1574 [16 Eliz.], Giles Sharpe was disfranchised for non- Leading
“payment of the queen’s butlerage, commonly called Prisage,” and fetes
bringing a quo warranto on the town.

“ a.p. 1602, Andrew Studley, alderman, was turned out of the Falsifica-
“ Corporation, but not out of his freedom of the town. The articles “°™
“against him were falsifying the Corporation’s books of accounts in
“* various instances for his own advantage, embezzling the public money,

“and taking a bribe to procure a lease at a small fine.

“ a.p. 1610, Henry Capelin was disburgessed for refusing to pay Hostility
“ £4 banquet-money at his admission. N.B.—He afterwards paid it, ee
“and was admitted.

““a.D. 1659, several burgesses were expelled by Cromwell, who, in Cromwell.
1662, were restored by the Commissioners for regulating Corporations,
and some others were then expelled. Of these last, James Capelin ?
was the chief; but as these were not acts of the Corporation, they
are not to be placed to their account.”

“a.D. 1662, a burgess was disfranchised for entering strangers’ Evasion.

** goods at the custom-house in his own naine. He brought a writ of
“mandamus to be readmitted, but the writ was returned re infectd.
** At length he agreed to a reference, and in 1681 notice was given to
“the collector of the customs that he still continued disenfranchised,
“ that the collector might recover the arrears of prisage that were due
“ from him.

“a.p, 1676, Thomas Farr, alderman, was excluded from the Common Dishonest;
“ Council for embezzling the Corporation’s effects when he was mayor.

“‘ Expulsions have not been practised for many years back.”

ce
ce
ce

ce

Other Orders concerning Burgesses.

“ Ordered [1559, 2 Eliz.] that all burgesses from the sheriff State and
“ inclusively upwards shall provide and use one right honest gown of ae
“‘ crimson or scarlet cloth on certain days under the penalty of £10.”
By a minute of August 4, 1569, “the aldermen’s wives are also
“ ordered to wear scarlet on the same days under the same penalty,”
according to old custom; and their husbands were desired to see
that the gowns be provided and worn. Aldermen whose wives did
not possess such gowns were to be fined #10, and those whose

 

1 See under ‘ Prisage.’
2 See “Minute of the Proceedings against Capelin,” below in last chapter,
date 1662.
3 « Perhaps this is what is meant above (A.D. 1565) by colouring strangers’
“ goods, rather than the circumstance mentioned in the Laws of the Guild.”
N
‘easting
acour-
zed,

estrained.

194 THE BURGESSES.

 

wives, though possessing, did not wear them were to be mulcted ten
shillings each day. All the gowns were to be ready against the
coming of the queen, under pain of £10; and the ladies were to
wear with their scarlet gowns ‘ frentche whoddes’ (French hoods).

“ ap. 1588. The fine for not having a scarlet gown was set at
“ £5, for not wearing it at ten shillings.

“ ap. 1593. A sheriff was fined for not wearing scarlet on Easter
“ Day, but was forgiven on his submission.

“ 4p. 1616. Mr. George Gollop, having been sheriff, was fined
“ £10 for not having a scarlet gown, and others were admonished to
“provide them. Half this fine was remitted, the other half was paid.

“ ap. 1613. Ordered that the burgesses and their wives shall be
“ placed in all public assemblies and churches according to their degrees,
‘““ by one of the serjeants appointed to that office.

“ ap, 1637. Ordered that the burgesses shal] attend Mr. Mayor
“on all davs of meeting, or upon summons, on pain of twelve pence.
“The days of assembly are the Friday before St. Matthew’s Day,
““ Michaelmas Day, the Friday after Michaelmas Day, and Saturday
following, Christmas Day, Easter Day, Trinity Eve, Quarter sessions,
“Gaol delivery, and at the coming of the king.” It had been pre-
sented in 1594 as a discredit for burgesses to go to the Law Day at
Cutthorn on foot, and they were desired to attend Mr. Mayor on
horseback as heretofore, on pain of two shillings and sixpence, and in
like manner to accompany him in the circuit round the libertics. None
were to be absent without leave.

In June 1753 it was ordered that burgesses on being sworn into
office should make their entertainments separately, but this order,
provocative of good cheer, acted prejudicially on the Corporation.
Within the last preceding years a considerable number of clergy and
gentry had been admitted; and the expense of the feasting became an
objection to the honour of burgess-ship; moderation in such entertain-
ments was therefore urged (September 11, 1767). Sheriffs were advised
to ride the bounds in the forenoon and to give no repast but at Cut-
thorn, and the Audit-room was placed at the disposal of the sheriff and
bailiffs for the feasts at Trinity Fair. In 1775 (September 26) new
regulations were made on this subject. The entertainments usually
given by the senior and junior bailiffs on the second and third court
days after their election were discontinued, and after 1777 the feast
given by the sheriff at Cutthorn was no longer to be provided by that
officer, but in lieu thereof the mayor was authorised to charge five
guineas in his annual accounts, afterwards (1778) increased to ten
guineas, in order to furnish what was necessary at the same place. In
future, also, the entertainments usually provided by the bailiffs and
THE BURGESSES. 195

 

sheriff at Trinity Fair were to be discontinued, and the mayor was
empowered to prepare instead a modest refreshment at the public
expense. These regulations, it was hoped, would ease future burgesses,
the allowance to the mavor was therefore reduced to twenty guineas ;
the stipend of fifty guineas being continued to the existing members of
the Common Council during their mayoralties in consideration of past
expenses, By a further regulation (September 29, 1783), it was ordered
that every new serving burgess should, on his admission to the Corpora-
tion, deposit fifty guineas in the chest by way of composition for the
expenses of entertainments formerly given by the bailiffs and sheriff, in
return for which the Corporation undertook to indemnify such serving
burgess for all usual entertainments, and also to pay the costs of his
guietus at the expiration of his shrievalty, and moreover to allow him
out of the chest during his mayoralty the old allowance of fifty guineas
notwithstanding the former resolution. This payment of fifty guineas
by incoming burgesses was informally dropped about 1795, and was so
permitted by minute of May 30, 1800.

From one cause or other the scarcity of burgesses to fill the town Lack of
offices was experienced again, 1788, the Corporation making a spirited aie
appeal to the gentlemen of the grand jury at quarter sessions (October) 378°
with a view of recruiting their ranks, The appeal met with remarkable
success ; it is here given in abstract.

The Corporation, seeing such a respectable grand jury, could not Appeal of
but hope that ‘the arm of the magistrate might be strengthened’ by fon
their support in checking the increasing licentiousness of the people.
‘The spirit of discord and delusion had gone forth, and was ‘ operating
with the worst effect on the minds of men who, instead of a conscien-
tious submission to established laws and customs, vainly sought for
advantage by opposition to all order and authority, affecting to revile
the power under which they dwelt safely.” The complicated wicked-
ness of the ‘inferior class of inhabitants,’ the shameless indecencies and
blasphemies, were such as ‘all the watchfulness of the magistracy
would not be able to prevent or punish without the concurrence of
those of superior rank.’ The Corporation then go on to show their
origin, and defend their existence. Southampton enjoyed singular
privileges, and might boast of grants superior to those of most other
towns; and ‘while the current of its customs and privileges flowed
unmolested by turbulent and seditious men, it was esteemed a secure,
peaceful, and desirable residency for people of all denominations.’
What gain could malevolent men obtain by a dissolution of the
present Corporation? There must be (1.) ‘ disorder, violence, and rapine

 

? Compare Massy, History of George IIL, vol. ii. p. 64,
iswer,

196 TIE BURGESSES.

 

till some new establishment could be formed, and new powers given to
another set of men, who, under a different name, would still be a corpor-
ate body intrusted with the execution of law, but without conferring on
the public any of the benefits of the present charter.’ Then they (2.)
specify the immense benefit of the admiralty jurisdiction, which could
only come by charter. But for this, ‘murder and robbery might be
committed with impunity by villains who, escaping to the water,’ might
defy ‘the shortened arm of justice.’ Or supposing for a moment (3.)
that ‘the present Corporation, wearied out by unprovoked indignities,’
were ‘induced to retire and resign their charter,’ was it likely that
‘such resignation would or could be accepted at the loss of certain
sums annually paid to Government, and to certain grantees under the
crown, all issuing from the petty customs, that averred grievance which
some pretended arose from the corporators?? The payment of such
would be exacted with a heavier hand through revenue officers. Then
(4.) how could the town walls, quays, and market-places be kept up?
Again, (5.) ‘should the barrier which now separates us from the county
at large be thrown down, the town courts, the courts both criminal]
and civil, must in consequence be removed to Winchester, and every
individual inhabitant of this place would be liable to serve on juries six
times yearly, besides occasional special juries, at an expense of both
time and money at least a hundred times greater than arises to them
while we thus happily enjoy a state of peculiar jurisdiction.’ Let then
“men of virtue and abilities’ rally round the Corporation and assume
“a participation of those powers and privileges which unworthy men
are anxious to attain to. Diminished in numbers, we have lost nothing
of that spirit which should ever accompany authority, and by which
we are enabled to bear the burden of quick returning offices, and to
despise the unjust reproach of being tenacious of our rights. If, ani-
mated by the same spirit, you accede to our wishes, that burden will
become light, and that reproach will be heard no more.’ Having dis-
posed of certain possible objections to their proposal, the Corporation
declares that if nothing comes of it, ‘you and others who may survive
must submit to see the honour of magistracy debased in the hands of
men destitute of every qualification for so important a charge.’
Forthwith two knights and eleven esquires signified their intention
of joining the Corporation, and others quickly (October 17) followed ;
and on November 3 there were elected as serving burgesses :—Sir John
Collins, Sir Richard King, General D’Auvergne, George Rogers,
Benjamin Caldwell, John Stewart, M.D., Philip Dumaresque, William
Sotheby, Alexander Irwine, Samuel Rollestone, Burcher Barrell, Noah
Le Crass, Colonel Heywood, Alexander Scott, Thomas Dixon, John
Harrison, George Vincent, Alexander St. Barbe, Frederick Britton,
THE BURGESSES. rez

 

Thomas South, George Bastide, James Ayscough, Esquires. It does
not appear that the town after this suffered from a lack of serving
burgesses.

“ The Burgesses Oath.

“You shall swear by the contents of this book that you shall from henceforth be
“ faithful and true to our Sovereign Lord the King, and to his heirs and successors.
“ Obeisant and obedient you shall be to the Mayor and other officers of this town,
“The franchises, customs, and ordinances thereof you shall well maintain to your
“* power, and keep harmless in that you may. You shall contribute to all manner
“‘ of charges within the town, as summons, watches, wards, contributions, taxes,
“tallages, lot and scot, and all other charges, bearing your part thereof as a Bur-
“ gess ought todo. You shall not colour or bear the name of any foreigner’s or
stranger’s goods, whereby the King or town may lose any custom, brokage, or
advantage. You shall know no foreigner or stranger to buy or sell any mer-
chandise with any foreigner or stranger within this town and the franchises
thereof, but you shall warn the Mayor for the time being, or his deputy, of the
same. You shall sue or implead no inhabitant of this town out of this town
without the special licence of the Mayor or his assistants, or the more part of
them, for the time being. You shall take no apprentice for less term than seven
years, within the first year whereof you shall cause him to be enrolled; and at
“his term’s end you shall consent and procure him to be set up,as much as in you
“lyeth, in this town, if he have well and truly served you. You shall know no
“‘ gathering of people, conventicles, or conspiracies made against the King’s peace
‘“ or the ordinances of this town, but you shall warn the Mayor thereof, and let
**them to your power. The counsel of the said town you shall faithfully keep, and
“ attend the Mayor, for the time being, at all sessions and other assemblies usual,
“ not being lawfully occasioned to the contrary. All these things you shall well
‘and truly perform and keep, So help you God and the contents of this
“ book.”

“
oc
“o
“
“
ec
“cc

“ce

Ffonorary Burgesses.

“ They have likewise honorary burgesses; they call them out-bur-
* gesses, because they are mostly gentlemen who do not live in the
“town. But they sometimes pay this compliment to gentlemen that
“are inhabitants. They are sworn, and their oath is called—

“¢ The oath of such gentlemen as are admitted to the freedom of a burgess of
“the town, and not altogether subject to such taxes, tallages, lot and scot, and
“ ¢ other attendances as other the common burgesses who pay fine for their freedom
“ © are liable to.

“¢ Ve shall be faithful and true to our sovereign lord the king, and his heirs
“ ¢ and lawful successors ; and the franchises and customs and ordinances of this
“ ¢town of Southampton you shall maintain and keep harmless in that you may
“ €to your power. So help you God.’

“‘ These honorary burgesses have a right to vote in the election of
“a mavor and of members of Parliament; and in matters of general
“ eoncern to the town it has always been usual to cal] a meeting of all
“ the burgesses that are in the town; but these honorary ones cannot
“ be present at the deliberations of a Common Council.”
ct of 1835.

198 THE BURGESSES.

 

The following notices concern honorary burgesses:—In 1490 (6
Hen. VII.) my Lord of Winchester was ‘made burgess’ free of charge,
‘but of his gentilnes he pardoned us for the same the fyne of the
pavelyne! and all other costes Jonging to the same with the homage for
that yere” The Abbot of Beaulieu and others were also admitted. In
1514 (6 Hen. VIII.). Thomas Skevington (or Pace), Bishop of Bangor
and Abbot of Beaulieu, was admitted ‘into the liberties of the gilde of
the town’ by free gift. He was a donor of some of the town plate.
These are among the earliest instances observed; that of 1490 is the
first of the creation of honorary burgesses. There can be little doubt,
however, that if the records had remained perfect we should have been
supplied with earlier cases, the creation of such burgesses being provided
for in the oldest copy of the Ordinances extant—that of c. 1300 (see
Ord. 57). Space forbids our dwelling on the very copious entries
of honorary burgesses.? From the end of the seventeenth century the
roll of burgesses consists very largely of non-townsmen and generally
of men of position.2 The entries from this latter period (1697) bear
each a two-shilling stamp ; a century later the stamp increases to four
shillings ; in 1806 to £1; in 1808 to £2; in 1815 to £3.

It was resolved (January 30, 1829) that each Common Council-
man who had attended during the last twelve months should be allowed
to nominate an honorary burgess; but in October 1831 it was decided
that no resident within the united parishes of the town should be
eligible for nomination ; the rule being waived in favour of G. F, Pitt,
Esq., the donor to the Corporation of his library, who was elected
December 23. The last admission to the burgess-ship bears date June
1, 1835. With the passing of the Municipal Corporation Reform
Act (September 9, 1835) the admission to burgess-ship by gift or
purchase became illegal (sect. 3).

Within the ten years immediately preceding that Act fifty-three
burgesses had been elected, forty-seven honorary and six serving ; there
being in the Corporation just previously to passing the Act twenty
resident or serving burgesses and about one hundred and sixty non-
resident, chiefly honorary. The former exclusive privileges of trading
enjoyed by burgesses had long since ceased. Before the passing of the
first Piet Act in 1803, they were exempted from wharfage dues; but on
the application for that Act it was agreed that the burgesses should give
up this right of exemption, and the Corporation that of petty customs,
receiving in exchange‘ a portion of the dues levied under the Act.

 

1 See below under ‘ Coutts,’

2 Entry of Burgesses from 1496 to 1704,

° Admission of Burgesses from 1697 to 1835.
+ See page 39,
BURGESSES OF FARLIAMENT. 199

 

The burgesses latterly had no privilege excepting that, whether
resident or not, they, equally with the inhabitants paying scot and lot,
were electors of members of Parliament for the town.

Under the present law, the universal qualification for enrolment as Act of
a burgess is that of being a male of full age, who, on the 15th of July ee
in any year, is, and has been during the whole of the then last pre-
ceding twelve months, in occupation, joint or several, of any house,
warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building (in this Act referred
to as qualifying property) in the borough, and has during the whole
of those twelve months resided in the borough or within seven miles
thereof, and has been rated in respect of the qualifying property to all
poor-rates made during those twelve months for the parish wherein
the property is situated; and has on or before the 20th of the same
July paid all such rates, including borough rates (if any), as have become
payable by him in respect of the qualifying property up to the then
last preceding 5th of January. Disqualifications for enrolment are
being an alien, or having been in receipt of union or parochial relief or
other alms within the twelve months aforesaid, or being disentitled under
any Act of Parliament.

The burgess roll is prepared each year by the town-clerk according
to the several provisions of the Act; it is published as directed and
printed for sale. The burgesses elect the town-councillors on November
1, who must fulfil conditions beyond those of an ordinary burgess; and
on March 1, or on another day with the approval of the Local Govern-
ment Board, they elect the auditors and assessors from among persons
qualified to be councillors.

Town
Council,

Burgesses of Parliament.

The authority for the names in the following list, except in the
few cases otherwise specified, is the parliamentary return to the order
of March 1, 1878, which has, in the former part, greatly amended all
previous compilations. The dates are those of the actual mecting of

Parliament.

1295. 23 Ed. I. Peter de Lyons.? 1300-1. 29 Ed. I. No return made by
Nov. 13. John de la Barre. Jan. 20 (Lincoln). the bailiffs.*

1298. 26 Ed. I. John Flemeng. 1302. 30 Ed. I. John de Shirlie.
May 25 (York). | William Fowel. Oct. 14. William Fughel.

 

1 The returning officers were the bailiffs, other burgesses being bound as manucaptors or
bailsmen for the appearance of the elected members at the appointed day and place. The mem-
bers were dond fide burgesses of the town: this continued till the time of James I., after which
the form of previous election to burgess-ship was always followed. It was attempted to restore
the old custom in April 1625, and select only inhabitants.

2 Such entries mean that the town shirked the duty and expense of making a return; a
negligence which seems to have been provided against by stat. 23 Hen. VI. c. 14.
 

200 BURGESSES OF PARLIAMENT.
1304-5. 33 Ed. I. No return. 1327-28. 2 Ed. III. John Ronde.
Feb. 28. Feb. 7 (York). John de Vans.
1306. 34 Ed. I. John le Flemyng. 1328. 2 Ed. ITI. Roger Normaund.
May 30. April 24 (North- Henry de Lym.
1305-7. 35 Ed. I. Bartholomew le Eng- ampton).
Jan. 20(Carlisle). _ leis. 1328-29. 3 Ed. III. Henry Burry.
NigeldelaWylderne. Feb. 9. Henry le Flemyng.
1307. 1 Ed. II. No return. 1329-30. 4 Ed. III. Johnle Flemyng.
Oct. 13 (North- March 11 (Win- Andrew Haywode.
ampton). chester).
1309. 2 Ed. IL No return. 1331-32. 6 Ed. III. Roger Normaund.
April 27. March 16. Thomas de Bynedon.
1311. 5 Ed. II, No return. 1332. 6 Ed. III. Roger Normaund.
Aug. 8. Sept. 9.
1311. Nov. 12. John de Shirle. 1332-33. 6 Ed. III. John de Weston.

1312-13. 6 Ed. II.
March 18.

1313. 7 Ed. II.
Sept. 23.

1314-15, 8 Ed. Il,
Jan. 20

1318, 12 Ed. II.
Oct. 20 (York).

1319. 12 Ed. IT.
May 6 (York).

1321. 15 Ed. II.
July 15,

1322. 15 Ed. II.
May 2 (York).

1322. 16 Ed. II.
Nov. 14 (York).

1323-24. 17 Ed. II.
Feb. 23.

1326-27. 20 Ed. II.
Jan. 7.

1327. 1 Ed. III.

Sept. 15 (Lincoln).

Henry de Lym,
William Bassingrom.
William Foghel.
Henry de Lym.
John le Flemyng.
Henry de Lym.?
John le Flemyng.
John Clerk.
Richard Wegge.
Richard de Sutton.
Henry Forster.

No return.3

John de Ronde.

John Forst.

John Jurdan.

William Broun.

Henry de Lym.

Robert de la Barre.

John le Flemyng,
sen.

John le Barber.*

Nicholas de Staun-
ford.

 

John Forst.

Jan. 20 (York).

1333-34. 8 Ed. III.
Feb. 21 (York).

1334. 8 Ed. III.
Sept. 19.

1335: 9 Ed. III.
May 26 (York).

1335-36. 10 Ed. III.
March 11.

1337. 11 Ed, III.
Sept. 26,

1337-38. 12 Ed. III.
Feb. 3.

1338. 12 Ed. III.
July 26 (North-

ampton).

1338-9. 13 Ed. III.

Feb. 3.

1340. 14 Ed. IIT.
March 29.

1341. 15 Ed. IIT.
April 23.
1343. 17 Ed. III.
April 28.

R(ichard) le Clerke.

Laurence de Mees.®

Henry Flemyng.
Laurence de Mees.

Hugo Sampson,
Roger atte Hurne.

Henry Flemyng.
Roger atte Hurne.

No return.

Henry le Flemyng.
Robert atte Barre.

No return.

Roger Normaund.
Thomas de la
Marche.
Nicholas Lonye.®
Adam Ineys.

Nicholas Lonye.
Richard Imberd.

Nicholas Lonye.
Adam Inweys.

 

1 Writ for their expenses was issued from the return day to November 15 at two shillings each

per day, tested November 18 (Parliamentary Writs, II. eclvi.)

In the early days, and through

the Middle Ages, the town paid the burgesses ; in later times the burgesses paid the town.
2 Writ of expenses, tested at York, December 9, 1318 (Ibid.)
3 Writ was returned to John de Ronde, bailiff of the liberties of the town, but he gave no
answer to the sheriff (Ibid.)
4 Writ of expenses at two shillings per day for each, tested at Westminster, March 9, 1327

(Prynne, p. 83).

5 See Prynne, Fourth Part of Brief Register.
issued for twenty shillings for ten days.

6 It was a frequent practice to summon specialists for consultation with the Council or Par-
liament on matters touching the king's honour and the safety of merchandise, to whom the same

Writ for expenses of Laurence de Mees was
 

BURGESSES OF PARLIAMENT. 201
1344. 18 Ed. III. No return. 1379-50. 3R.II. John Polymound.
June 7. Jan. 16. William Bacon, of
1346. 20 Ed. III. John Wygayn. St. Michael's.
Sept. 11. Ralph Beauflour. 1381. 5 RII. John Polymond.
1347-48. 21 Ed. III. John Fismark. Nov. 3. William Bacon.
Jan. 14. Richard Imberd. 1382, 5 R. IL. John Polymond,.
1348. 22 Ed. III. John de Worgan. aay William Bacon, sen.
March 31. Thomas de Abyndon, | 1382. 6 R. IL John Polymond.
1350-51. 25 Ed. II. John le Clerk. Oct. 6. John Flete.
Feb. 9. John Fismark. 1382-83. 6 R. II. Richard Meye.
1352. 26 Ed. ITI. Henry Stanford. Feb. 23. William Bowyare.
Aug. 16. 1384. 7 RII. John Polymond.
1353. 27 Ed. III. No return found. April 29 (Salis- John Flete.
Sept. 23. bury).
1355. 29 Ed. III. John le Clerk. 1384. 8R. IL John Polymond.
Nov. 23. Thomas de Abyndon. Nov. 12. Richard Mey.
1357-58. 32 Ed. III. John le Clerk. 1385. 9 R. IL. John Emmory.
Feb. 5. John Wytegod. Oct. 20, William Bole.
1360. 34 Ed. III. John Jardyn. 1386. 10 R. II. John Pengeston.
May 15. William Warewyk. Oct, 1. Roger Mascall.
1360-61. 34 Ed. III. John Clerk. 1387-88. 11 R.II, William Mapel.
Jan. 24. John Jardin. Feb. 3. John Scarlet.
1362. 36 Ed. III. John Wytegod.? 1388, 12 RII. Nicholas Sherwynd.
Oct. 13. Thomas de Kyngton. Sept. 9 (Cam- John Bygard.
1363. 37 Ed. III. John le Clerk, Mer
Oct. 6. John Wytegod. 1389-90. 13 R.II. William Mapel.
1364-65. 38 Ed. III. John Je Clerk, iene THe eER ED:
Jan. 20. John Polymond. 1391. 15 RII. William Mapel.
1368. 42 Ed. III. John Wytgod. Bley ge _ ee Appelby.
May 1. Ralph Taillour. 1392-93. 16 R, It. William Mapel.
1369. 43 Ed. III. No atin. Jan. 20 (Winches- Thomas Appelby.
June 3. ter).
1371. 45 Ed. III. William Bacoun. 1393-94. 17 R.II. John Pengeston.
June 8 (Winches- Jan. 27. Thomas Appelby.
ter). 1394-95. 18 R. II. Thomas Appelby.
1372. 46 Ed. IIL. John Clerk, Jan. 27. Thomas Marleburgh.
Nov. 3- Richard Mey. 1396-97. 20 R. I]. Thomas Appulby.
1373. 47 Ed. III. John Clerk. Jan. 22. John Deryng.
Nov. 21. John Polymond. 1397. 21 RIL. Walter Lange.
1376-77. 1 Ed. III, Richard Mey. Sept. 17. John Deryng.
Jan. 27. William Malmeshull. | 1397-98. Jan. 27. Parl. continued.
1378 2R.IL William Bole. (Shrewsbury).
Oct. 20 (Glouces- Philip Cake. 1399. 1 H.IV. Thomas Middelton.
ter). Oct. 6. Richard Bradeway.

 

 

allowances were made as to members of Parliament. Thus in this Parliament three or four owners
of ships and merchants having been summoned from Southampton, expenses for forty-four days
(£4, 8s.) were allowed by writ to (Hugo or Nic.) Sampson, who appeared for the town (Prynne

Fourth Part, &c., pp. 186, 188).
1 John Wytegod appears to have lent L100 to Edward ITI. some little time after this, having

repayment in July 1370 (Pell Issue Roll, th July, 44 Ed. IIL.)
 

202 BURGESSES OF PARLIAMENT.
1402, 3H. IV. Thomas Midlyngton. | 1430-31. 9H. VI. William Soper.
Sept. 15. Thomas Marlebergh. Jan. 12. William Chamber-
leyn.
1405-6. 4 H. IV. Walter Lange. oi
Feb. 15(Coventry). John Penkeston. 1432. 10H. VI. William Soper.
May 12. William Chaumber-
I41t. 13 HIV. John ean ’ leyn.
2 gn.
Ne ee ere 1433. 11 H. VI William Soper.
1413. 1H. V. Thomas Armorer. July 8. William Chaumber-
May 14. William Sopere. leyn.
1413-14. 2H. V. Thomas Armorer. 1435. 14H. VI. William Chamber-
Jan. 29 (Leicester). Thomas Marleburgh. Oct. 10. leyn.
1414. 2H.V. William Sopere. Jona Eaym
Nov. 19. Thomas Marleburgh. | 1436-37. 15 H. VI. William Marche.
. 21. hn Kirkeby.
1415. 3H. V. Thomas Marleburgh. Jan. 23 Jo oe vee
Oct. 21. Benedict Wycche- | 1441-42. 20H. VI. William Soper.
ford. Jan. 25. William Chamber-
HV. William S cen
1419. 7 11. V. uliam Sopere. oa
o Oct. 16. William Chamber- 1446-47. 25 H. VI. William Stone.
leyne. Feb. 10 (Bury John Payn.
SHL.V William § St. Edmunds).
1420. . Ve illiam Sopere. a!
Dec. 2, William Chaumber- | 1448-49. 27 H. VI. William Soper.
leyn Feb. 12. William Stone.
1449. 28 H. VI. John Flemang.
1421. 9 H.V. Thomas Marleburgh. aos
May 2. Richard Thornes, Nov. 6. Swallinee StoHee
ae 1450. 29H. VI. John Payn.
1421. 9H. V. William Soper. Nov. 6. Nicholas FHoline:
Dec. I. John Mascall. hegge.
1422, 1H. VI. John Mascall. 1452-53. 31 H. VI, Andrew Jamys.
Nov. 9. Thomas Marleburgh. Mar. 6 (Reading). Thomas Chamber-
1425. 3H. VI. William Sopere. leyn.
April 30. Richard Thornys. 1455. 33H. VI. John William.
1425-26. 4H. VI. William Overey. July 9. Niesevareaaed
Feb. 18 (Leices- Thomas Marleburgh. | 1461. 1 Ed. IV. Richard Aysche.?
ter). Nov. 4. Andrew Jamys.
1427, 6H. VI. Peter Jamys. 1472. 12 Ed. IV. Robert Bluet.4
Oct. 13. William Chaumber- Oct. 6. Walter Fetplace.
layn. 1477-78. 17 Ed. lV. John Walker.
1429. 8H. VI. William Soper. Joost Roger Kelsale,
Sept. 22. William Chamber- | 1482-83. 22 Ed. 1V. Thomas Reynold.
leyn. Jan. 20. Roger Kelsale.5

 

 

’ Received forty shillings in part payment of his Parliament wages on April 3d, during his

mayoralty ; knighted in

1456.

2 In the next book of accounts we find payment to Walter Clerk ‘for his parlement wages
holde at Westm. the xxxiij yere of Henry the Sexte for cxix dayes in parte of payment of his par-
lement wages x!i xix8,’—z,e., he received the half of two shillings a day (Steward's Book, 1457).

3 «Item payd by the honddes of Rychard Aysche for the parlement wages for the sayd Rychard
and Anddrew Jamys for lix dayys, for the day iiijs, the fyrst yere of Kyng Edward the iiijst. sm
xj xvis."—that is, two shillings a day each (Steward's Book, 1461-62).

4 Prynne.

5 Roger Kelsale was attainted (rz R. III. 1483-84) with Walter Williams, Sir William Overey,
J. Fessant, &c. ; a reversal of this attainder being granted 1 Hen. VII. (1485). Rot. Parl. vi. 246,

273.
BURGESSES OF

PARLIAMENT.

203

 

1483-84. 1R. III.
Jan. 23.

1485. 1 H. VII.
Nov. 7.

1487. 3H. VII.
Nov. 9.

1495. 11 H. VII.
Oct. 14.

1503-4. 19 H. VII.
Jan. 25.
1523. 14 H. VIII.

April 15 (Black
Friars).

1529. 21H. VIII.
Nov. 3 (London).

1541-42. 33 H. VIII.
Jan. 16.

1547. 1 Ed. VI.
Nov. 4.

1552-53. 7 Ed. VI.
Mar. I.

1553-1 Mary.
Oct. 5.
1554. 1 Mary.
April 2.

1554 1&2P.&M.
Nov. 12.

John Shropshire.?
John Walker.

Thomas Reynold.*
Thomas Overey.

Sampson Norton.3

Thomas Thomas.
John Dawtrey.?

John Flemynge.?

Nicholas Dey.4
John Mille.

Nicholas Dey.
John Milles.

Christopher Stowe.5
John Glynne.

John, prob. James,
Stonard.5

James  Stonard,
Alderman.

Sir Francis Flemyng.
Thomas Mille.

Richard Buttler,
Merchant.

James Brende, Gen-
tleman.

James Brenne, Gen-
tleman.
James Stoner, Mer-

 

chant.

1555.
Oct. 21,

2&3P.&M. James Brande, Re-

corder of South-
ampton,
Thomas Fasshyn,
Merchant.

1557-58. 4&5 P.&M. John Staveley, Gen-

Jan. 20.

1558-59.
Jan. 23.

1562-63.
Jan. 11.

1571. 13 Eliz.
April 2.

1572. 14 Eliz.
May 8.

1584. 27 Eliz.
Nov. 23.

1586. 28 Eliz.
Oct. 15.

1 Eliz.

5 Eliz.

tleman.
James Brande, Gen-
tleman.

Thomas Bekingham,
Merchant.

Edward Willmott,
Merchant.

John Caplyn, Gentle-
man.

James Brande, Gen-
tleman.

Edward Horsey,
Esq.6
John Crook, Gentle-

man,

Sir Henry Walloppe,
Knight.”

Nicholas Capelin,
Gentleman.®

Thomas
Esq.?

Thomas Goddard,
Gentleman.

Dyggs,

John Penruddock,
Esq.

William Thorley,
Gentleman.

 

1 Shropshire and Walker received the usual wages, January 21 ; John Walker received pardon,
with the rest of the burgesses, for all offences, &c., June 1, 1484. This was in answer to a
supplication to the king from the mayor (Walker), 3d December (1 R. III.) 1483, defending the
town’s privileges through John Shropshire, Walter Latham, &c. (Steward's Book).

2 These two burgesses seem to have been paid (/7, 13s. 4d.) January 23, 1486 (r H. VIL.)
They left the Friday before St. Leonard’s Day (November 6), and returned the morrow after St.
Luce’s [Lucy's] Day (December 13) (Lib. Remembr. H. 152 b, 155).

3 So Dr. Speed in his brief list.

4 These burgesses seem to have been members at this time (Lib, Rem. H. 88), as they certainly
were in the next Parliament (see Parl. Returns, 1878).

5 Willis's Notitia Parliamentaria.

6 Ibid. Edward Horsey, captain and constable of Carisbrook Castle, and governor of the
Isle of Wight from 1565 to 158 ; knighted December 1577.

? Fulk Greville, Esq., sat part of the three sessions for Wallop abroad in the queen's service
(Beatson, Reg. of Parl i. 457). : ;

8 Towards the parliamentary charges of Nicholas Capelin, 410 (see Temp. T. Overey, 1580),

9 October 23, 1584, the nomination of one of the burgesses was given to the Earl of Leicester
on his request. Thomas Goddard was the town’s nominee ; both were to bear their own charges,
and neither receive anything from the town (Boke of Remembrances, sub ann.)
 

204 BURGESSES OF PARLIAMENT.
1588-89. 31 Eliz. Thomas Wilkes, Esq. | 1625-26. 1 Chas. I. Sir John Mill, Bart.
Feb. 4. Richard Goddard, Feb. 6. George Gollop, Al-
Gentleman. * derman.
1592-93. 35 Eliz. Sir Thomas Wilkes, | 1627-28. 3 Chas. I. John Mayjor,? Alder-
Feb. 19. Knight. March 17. man.
Thomas Heton, Esq. George Gollop, Al-
1597. 39 Eliz. William Wallop, derman.
Oct. 24. Esq. 1640. 16 Chas. I. Sir John Mill, Bart.
Francis Bacon, Esq. April 13. Thomas Living-
1601. 43 Eliz. Thomas Fleminge of stonne, Esq., Re-
Oct. 27. Stoneham, Esq,, corder of South-
Solicitor - General, ampton.
BpepeEen ah Sanit 1640. 16Chas.I. George Gollop,? Al-
atten: Nov. derman.
23.
Thomas Lambert, Edward Edens Al
Est: derman.
1603-4. 1 Jas. I. Sir Thomas  Fle- 1634. (Protector’s). John Lisle, Esq., one
March 19. minge, Knt., Soli- Sept. 3. éfihe Lords Come
citor-General. missioners of the
Sir John Jeffrey, Knut, Great Seal, and
1614. 12 Jas. I. Sir Thomas Fle- Recorder of South-
April 5. minge, Knt. (son of ampton.
og chen os oe John Lisle, Esq.
1620-21. 18Jas.I. Sir Thomas Fle- ae :
Jan. 16. mynge, Knight, of 1658-59. (R. Cromw.) Thomas _—_ Knollys,4
Southampton. Jan. 27. Esq., of _anene
Henry Sherfeilde, Place, Nursling.
Esq., Recorder of Roger Gallop, Esq.,
Southampton. of Stanbridge.
1623-24. 21 Jas. I. Sir John Mill, Bart., 1660. 12 Chas. I]. William Stanley,
Feb. 12. of Southampton. April 25. Esq.
Henry — Sherfielde, Robert Richbell,
Esq., Recorder of Esq.
Southampton. 1661, 13 Chas. II. Sir Richard Ford,
Thomas Bonde, Esq.," May 8. Knight? Alder-
vice Sherfield, elec- man, of London.
ted for Salisbury. William Legg, Esq.
1625. 1 Chas. I. Sir John Mill, Bart. 1678-79. 31 Chas. II. Thomas Knollis,
May 17. George Gollop, Al- March 6. Esq., Merchant.®

derman, of Stan-
bridge and South-
ampton,

 

Benjamin Newland,
Merchant, of Lon-
don.

 

1 On March 1, 1623-24, the Corporation wrote to Sir John Mill and to Mr. Recorder (Sherfield)

for their assistance in obtaining a new election (Journal).

2 See under ‘ Mayors.’

3 On death of Gollop, town agreed (December 2, 1650) to petition for a continuance of their
ancient privilege of having two burgesses of Parliament, and for a writ to choose a new one.

4 Election was at the Guildhall, Monday, January 10, between the hours of nine and eleven.
The burgesses had to assemble at the Audit-house by eight o'clock (Journal, January 7, 1658-509).

5 These two members had been invited by the Corporation to accept burgess-ships with a view
to their representing the town, and were elected respectively in April and March 1661;
Colonel William Legge was Lord of the Bedchamber to Charles I. and Charles II,

6 On the voting (February 5) Knollys had 34 and Newland 41 votes of the burgesses of the

town who were the electors (Journal, February 7, 1678-79).

Knollys had sat in the Parliament of

1658-59 ; during the present he died, and was buried in Westminster Abbey, June 3.
 

BURGESSES OF PARLIAMENT. 205

1679. 31 Chas. I], Sir Charles Wynd- | 1700-1. 12 W.III. Roger Mompesson,

Oct. 17. ham, Knight, of Feb. 6. Esq., Recorder, of
Cranbury, near Southampton.

Winchester. Mitford Crowe, Mer-

Sir Benjamin New-
land, Knight.

1680-81. 33 Chas. II. The same.

March 21.
1685. 1 Jas. IL. The same.
May 19.
1688-89. (Interreg- Sir Benjamin New-
num.) land, Knight, of
Jan. 22. London.

Richard Brett, Esq.,
of Marwell, co.
Southampton.

Edward = Fleming,
Esq.) (vice Brett,
deceased), Nov.25,
1689,

Sir Charles Wynd-
ham, Knight, the
same day (vice
Fleming, or rather
vice Brett).

1689-90. 2 W. & M. The same.
March 20.

1695. 7 W. III. The same.
Novy. 22.

1698 10 W. IIT. Sir Benjamin New-
Aug. 24. land, Knight.

John Smith, Esq.

Roger Mompesson,
Esq., Recorder of
Southampton (vice
Newland, deceased,
Dec. 27, 1699).

 

17or. "13 W. III.
Dec. 30.

1702. 1 Anne.
Aug. 20.

1705. 4 Anne.
Oct. 25.

1708. 7 Anne.
Nov. 18.

1710. 9g Anne.
Nov. 25.

1713-14.
Feb. 18.

1714-15.
March 21.

1722. 9 Geo. I.
Oct. 9.

12 Anne.

1 Geo, I.

chant.
Adam de Cardonnel,
jun., Esq.

Mitford Crowe, Esq.
Frederick
Esq.
Adam de Cardonnel,

jun., Esq.

Tilney,

Henry Viscount
Woodstock.

Adam de Cardonnel,
jun., Esq.

Viscount Woodstock.

Simeon Steuart, Esq.
(vice Lord Wood-
stock, who elected
to serve for the
county).

Adam de Cardonnel,
jun., Esq.

Adam de Cardonnel,?
Esq.

Roger Harris, Esq.
(vice Cardonnel,
expelled).

RichardFleming,Esq.

Richard
Esq.

Roger Harris, Esq.

Fleming,

Thomas Lewis,3Esq.,
ofSoberton, Hants.
RichardF leming, Esq.

Thomas Lewis, Esq.
Thomas  Missing,*

Esq., of Stubbing-
ton.

 

1 The new writ was ordered November 2,

Edward Fleming was elected by the mayor, bailiffs,

and select burgesses, but petitioned against by Sir Charles Wyndham ; when the House decided
(December 31, 1689) that the right of election was with the burgesses and inhabitants paying scot
and lot ; and Wyndham was declared elected. On this most righteous decision, or no doubt having
itin view, Dr. Speed says, ‘' About this time the scot and lot people claimed a right to vote, which
“« made the election of M.P.’s no longer a Corporation affair; and therefore the names of the
‘* members are not entered in the Corporation books after this time.” His very scanty list, which

commences with 1441-42, ends with 168s.

2 Secretary to the Duke of Marlborough ; expelled the House for receiving an annual gratuity
of soo gold ducats from contractors for bread and bread waggons for the army ; new writ ordered

February 26, 1711-12,

3 Presented the town with £200, which the Corporation (August 10, 1722) agreed should go

to their oldstanding debts.

They proposed further to meet every year in the Audit-house on the

anniversary of Mr. Lewis's birthday to keep it in a suitable manner in memory of his gift (Journal).
4 Proveditor-General for Gibraltar and Port Mahon,
206

BURGESSES OF PARLIAMENT.

 

1727-28, 1 Geo. II.

Jan. 7.

1734. 8 Geo. II.
June 13.

1741. 15 Geo. IT.
Dec. 4.

1747. 21 Geo. IL.
Nov, Io.

1754. 27 Geo. IL.
May 31.

1761. 2 Geo. III.
Nov. 3.

Robert Eyre,! Esq.

Anthony Henley,
Esq.

William Heathcote,?
Esq. (vice Eyre).

Sir William Heath-
cote, Bart.

Anthony Henley,
Esq.

John Conduit, Esq.,
of Cranbury (vice
Henley, on petition,
April 1735).

Thomas Lee Dummer,
Esq. (vzce Conduit,
deceased).3

Peter Delmé, Esq.
Edward Gibbon, Esq.

Anthony Langley
Swymmer, Esq.
Peter Delmé, Esq.

Anthony Langley
Swymmer, Esq.
Hans Stanley,® Esq.,

of Paultons.
Henry Dawkins, Esq.,
of Dunston, Berks
(vice Swymmer, de-
ceased; new writ
March 24, 1760).

Henry Dawkins,
Esq.®

Hans Stanley, Esq.,
appointed Gover-
nor of Isle of
Wight, 1765 ; Cof-
ferer of H. M.
Household, 1766;
new writ ordered,
re-elected.

 

1768. 8 Geo, IIL.
May Io.

1774-
Nov. 29.

1780. 21 Geo. ITI.

Oct. 31.

1784.

May 18.

1790.
Nov. 25.

15 Geo. III.

24 Geo. III.

31 Geo. III.

Henry Viscount Pal-
merston, Baron
Temple, of Mount
Temple.

Right Hon. Hans
Stanley, appointed
Governor of Isle of
Wight; new writ
May 16, 1770; re-
elected.

John Fleming, Esq.,
of Stoneham Park
(Tory).

Right Hon. Hans
Stanley (T.), ap-
pointed Cofferer,
&c. ; new writ Nov.
1, 1776; re-elected ;
died; new writ Jan.
24, 1780.

Jobn Fuller, Esq., of
Rosehill, co. Sus-
sex (T.), vzce Stan-
ley, deceased.

John Fuller, Esq., of
Rosehill, Sussex.
Hans Sloane, Esq.
of South Stoneham

(T.)

John Fleming,’ Esq.
James Amyatt, Esq.,
of Freemantle (T.)

James Amyatt, Esq.
Henry Martin, Esq.,
(T.), of Stratford-
place, London,
Capt. R.N., Con-
troller of Navy,
created Bart. July

 

1 Made Commissioner of Excise ; new writ ordered May 14, 1729.
2 In September 1729 Mr. Heathcote presented the Corporation with 7oo guineas for the public
good—f200 for repairing the sea-banks, £105 towards an organ for Hoiy Rood, £230 towards
fire-engines and waterworks’ debt, and £200 for the use of the chamber, which they appropriated

in a specified way.

In August 1732 Mr. Heathcote proposed to bring water into the town ; leave

was given him to open ground for the purpose, and thanks returned for his liberality (Journal).
3 John Conduit, Master of the Mint, died May 23, 1737 ; new writ ordered June x, 1737.

4 In May 1742 Mr. Delmé presented the town with £500 (Journal),
father of the historian.

Edward Gibbon was

This election was caused by the sudden creation of 170 new freemen in
the Tory interest (Gibbon, Autobiog., p. 18).
5 Made a Commissioner of the Admiralty; new writ ordered December 1, 1757 ; re-elected.

6 These members gave between them £1116 towards lengthening the quay, May 1764. Mr.
Dawkins was a great donor of turtles,
BURGESSES OF

PARLIAMENT.

207

 

1796. 36 Geo. III.
Sept. 27.

1802.
Nov, 16,

1806. 47 Geo. III.
Dec. 15.

1807. 47 Geo, ITI.
June 22. ,

1812. 53 Geo. III.
Nov. 24.

1819.
Jan. 14.

1820. 1 Geo. IV.
April 27.

43 Geo. III.

59 Geo. III.

28, 17913; died;
new writ August
19, 1794.

George Henry Rose,
Esq. (T.), of Cuff-
nalls, co. South-
ampton, wee Mar-
tin.

George Henry Rose,
Esq.

James Amyatt, Esq.

James Amyatt, Esq.

George Henry Rose,
Esq., of Lower
Brook Street, Lon-
don.

Arthur Atherley,
Esq., jun. (W.)
George Henry Rose,
Esq., of Mudeford,

Christ Church.

George Henry Rose,
Esq., of Muddi-
ford.

Josias Jackson, Esq.,
(W.), of Bellevue,
co. Southampton.

ArthurAtherley,jun.,
Esq. (W.), of Wel-
beck, Marylebone,
co. Middlesex.

George Henry Rose,
Esq., appointed
Clerk of Parlia-
ment; new writ
March 1818.

William Chamber-
layne, Esq. (W.),
of Weston Grove,
vice Rose.

William Chamber-
layne, Esq.

Sir William Campion
De Crespigny, of
Kingsrew, Fawley
Bart. (W.)

Sir W. C. De Cres-
pigny, Bart.

William Chamber-
layne, Esq.

 

1826.
Nov. 14.

1830.
Oct. 26.

1831.
June 14.

1833. 3 Wm. IV.
Jan. 29.

1835.
Feb. 19.

1837. 1 Vict.
Oct. 15.

1841. 5 Vict.
Aug. 19.

7 Geo. 1V.

1 Wm. IV.

1 Wm. IV.

5 Wm. IV.

William Chamber-
layne, Esq.

Abel Rous Dottin,
Esq. (T.), of Bugle
Hall, Southamp-
ton,

James Barlow Hoy,
Esq., of Miden-
bury (T.), vice W.
Chamberlayne,!
who died Dec. 10,
1829,

Abel Rous Dottin,
Esq.

James Barlow Hoy,
Esq.

Arthur — Atherley,
Esq. (L.), of Ar-
undel, co. Sussex.

John Storey Penleaze,
Esq. (L.), of Bos-
sington, co. South-
ampton.

Arthur
Esq.
James Barlow Hoy,
Esq., unseated on

Atherley,

petition, April
1833.
John Storey Penleaze,

Esq., vice Hoy.

James Barlow Hoy,
Esq. (C.)

Abel Rous Dottin,
Esq. (C.)

Abel Rous Dottin,

Esq.

Viscount Duncan,
(L.)

Lord Bruce (T.),
of Broomhall, Fife-
shire.

Charles Cecil Mar-
tyn, Esq. (T.), of
Whitehall Gar-
dens. On petition
these elections de-
clared void. Aug.
1842 new elections
vice above,

Humphrey St. John

 

1 At nomination on January 7, 1830, at Guildhall, show of hands in favour of Mr. Hoy, but

poll demanded on behalf of John Storey Fenleaze.

being Hoy, 437; Penleaze, 174 ; majority for Hoy, 263.

The voting lasted five days, final numbers
208

THE ALDERMEN.

 

1847. 11 Vict.
Nov. 18.

1852. 16 Vict.

Nov. 4.

1857. 20 Vict.

April 30.

Mildmay, Esq.(T.),
of BerkeleySquare,
London.

George William
Hope, Esq. (T.), of
Curzon Street,
London.

Alex. James Edmund
Cockburn, Esq.,
Q.C. (L.), of Wake-
hurst Place, co.
Sussex,

Brodie M‘Gie Wil-
cox, Esq. (L.), of
Dorset Square,
London.

Cockburn re-elected
after appointment
as Solicitor-Gene-
ral, July 17, 1850.

SirA.J. E. Cockburn,
Knight, re-elected
after appointment
as Attorney-Gene-
ral, April 2, 1851.

Brodie M‘Gie Wil-
cox, Esq.

Sir A. J. E. Cock-
burn, Knight, ap-
pointed Chief-Jus-
tice of Common
Pleas, November
21, 1856.

Thomas Matthias
Weguelin, Esq.
(L.), of Goldings,
Hertford, Feb-
ruary 1857, vice
Cockburn,

Brodie M‘Gie Wil-
cox, Esq., of Port-
man Square.

Thomas Matthias
Weguelin, Esq.

 

1859. 22 Vict.
May 31.

1866. 29 Vict.
Feb. 2.

1868. 32 Vict.
Dec. 10.

1874. 37 Vict.
March 5.

1880. 43 Vict.
April 29.

1883. 46 Vict.

Aldermen.

William Digby Sey-
mour, Esq. (L.C.),
of the Inner Tem-
ple.

Brodie M‘Gie Wil-
cox, Esq., died
November 6, 1862.

William Anderson
Rose, Esq. (C.), of
theMansion-house,
London (Decem-
ber 8, 1862) vice
Wilcox.

Right Hon. Russell
Gurney, Q.C. (C.)

George Moffatt, Esq.
(L.)

Russell Gurney, Q.C,
Peter Merrik Hoare,
Esq. (C.)

Sir Frederick Per-
kins, Knight (L.)
Right Hon. Russell
Gurney, Q.C.,
died May 31, 1878.

Alfred Giles, Esq.
(C.), of Cosford,
Godalming, vice
Gurney.

Alfred Park Butt,
Q.C. (L.)

Henry Lee, Esq.
(L.), of Sedgley
Park, Manchester.

Alfred Giles, Esq.
(C.), elected April
6, vice Butt, ele-
vated to the Judg-
ship of the Admir-
alty Court.

Little has been said of the dignities of aldermen and _ sheriff.
The earliest mention of aldermen occurs in the Ordinances of the Guild
Merchant, when the ‘chief alderman,’ who was no doubt the mayor,
and the twelve aldermen of wards, are mentioned; the office of these
latter seems to have been chiefly that of police and sanitary regulation.
The first charter which refers to aldermen is that of 2 Hen. IV. (1401),
in which power was given or confirmed to elect four aldermen from
THE SHERIFF.—THE BAILIFFS, 209

 

among the burgesses for the purposes therein stated. The last govern-
ing charter (16 Chas. I. 1640) speaks of six aldermen, but probably the
number was indefinite, and nothing is said as to their election or
creation. Previously to the Act of 1835 the aldermen were those who
had served the mayoralty, and they became such at the expiration of
their office without any election; their number at the passing of the
Act was nineteen, including the mayor. The aldermen are now ten in
number, as arranged by the above Act, one-half of whom go out of
office every third year, but may be re-elected. They hold office for six
years, and are chosen from the councillors or persons qualified to be
such ; the councillors themselves requiring a certain property qualifica-
tion, holding office for three years, and one-third going out of office
each year.
Sheriff.

The grant of a sheriff, to be chosen from among the burgesses,
was made by charter of 25 Hen. VI. (1447). For the occupants of the
office see above.

Before the Act of 1835 the sheriff was elected by the mayor and
burgesses from the burgesses. He was invested with the powers of a
county sheriff; he attended at the assizes when held for the town and
county of the town, and at the sessions, for both of which he summoned
the juries. He held a county court when necessary, and executed writs
from the superior court, which were directed to him immediately. He
was not connected in any way with the civil court of pleas. His
principal duties were performed by an under-sheriff.. He is now
appointed immediately after the mayor each gth of November, with the
powers of a county sheriff, which indeed he is, continued to him.

Of the Bailiffs.

“Though the serving of offices be the charter qualification for
‘ membership in the Common Council (see charter 16 Chas. I.), yet
“some have been admitted on their paying fines for office. As the
* office of bailiff is the first, and consequently the introductory one to
“ the Common Council, I shall give a few instances relating to that
“ office and the sheriff’s, which were sometimes excused together.

“a.p, 1696. Mr. Richard White was excused from serving the
* office of water-bailiff for a fine of £10; and in 1697 excused from
“ that of senior bailiff for £7, and was sworn of the Common Council.
“© N.B.—The junior bailiff is water-bailiff, the senior, bailiff of the court.

“a.p. 1726, Mr. William Freeman was excused from serving

a

 

1 Report of Commissioners, 1835.
Steward.’

‘Treasurer.

210 THE STEWARD AND TREASURER.

 

“ the offices of bailiff and sheriff for a fine of £30; and if it be the
“ recorder’s opinion that he is a member of the Common Council by
“ fining, to pay #5 more. N.B.—He was a member of the Common
“ Council. The fines of composition for offices have been very different
“at different times, and some have been excused without any fine
“at all; so that the whole appears to depend upon the will of the
“ Common Council.

“Tt has been usual [of later years] to choose the bailiffs out of the
“younger burgesses who have not served that office before. But in
“ 13 Eliz. 1571, it is recorded that Richard Goddard, though an alder-
““ man, was chosen one of the bailiffs, for certain reasons them moving.”?
In 1587 it was ordered that the senior alderman of the town should
henceforth be the chief bailiff of the court of the town of Southampton,
and that the younger bailiff of the same court should preside at Trinity
Fair, and be at the charges thereof.

Until the Act of 1835 the bailiffs were, jointly with the mayor,
judges of the civil court of pleas; and with the mayor were also the
returning officers at the election of members of Parliament.

Of the Steward and Treasurer.

“The office of steward has been laid aside for some years; when
“it was in use, the steward received and paid all, except some few
“articles that belonged to the mayor’s office, and both the mayor and
“the steward delivered in books of their accounts every year. There
“are many of these books in the Audit-house;” they range from 1441
to 1699, and are among the most interesting sources of local history.
“ But some of their stewards having proved very deficient, they came to
“a resolution to hold an audit half-yearly for the receipt of their rents,
“and to appoiut a treasurer, and to settle their accounts every quarter.”

The court Jeet had demanded a general audit of the town accounts
in 1652, as the fines and amercements for many years past had either
not been levied, or not carried to the town’s account. Several stewards
and other officers had made no return of the annual rents and profits,
as they were bound to do; it was therefore desired that these various
officers should bring their accounts to be examined by the auditors, and
in the margin is written fiat, which was usual when it was intended
that a presentment should really have some effect,

The office of treasurer succeeded to that of steward. Under the

 

1 Dr, Speed after this instances a considerable number of fines taken in lieu
of accepting the various offices; these compositions, as he observes, are to be
distinguished from the amercements for refusing office.

2 “ Book H., f. 61.” * Boke of Remembrances, f. 153.
OTHER OFFICERS. 2TI

 

present Jaw the treasurer, whose office it is to keep the accounts of the
borough, is appointed by the Council, and holds office during pleasure.
He cannot be a member of the Town Council.

Other Officers.

“There are some other officers appointed from among the towns- “ Discreets

ee * ” of the
men who are not burgesses ; as four discreets of the market.”? These market.”

were anciently chosen on the Morrow of St. Michael, two to superin-
tend the meat-market and two the fish-market; and al] four were to
see that the statutes concerning the sale of bread were observed (Guild
Ord, 31).

“T do not find this office mentioned in any charter.

“ The form of their oath will show their business :—

“¢ Ye shall well and truly serve in your office of Discreets of the Market. Ye
“ “shall see that they sell good victual and wholesome for man’s body, both in fish
“and flesh, and be indifferent between buyer and seller ; and that the fish-market
“begin according to Mr. Mayor’s proclamation. And all other things that to
““* your office belongeth ye shall well and truly execute. So help you God,’ &c.

“ They still continue [c. 1770] to burn unwholesome victuals.”

Four discreets of the market are now appointed from the borough
police, but they have no duties to perform,

“As Portswood is within the liberties of the town, they every ‘Alder-
“ year choose an officer of that tithing, who is called Alderman of Ports- hag
“wood. His business is that of a head-borough or constable, and he ¥°°*”
“is sworn into his office in the town court.”

The earliest observed notice of this officer occurs under 1469, when
he pays over to the steward on the law-day ‘ for divers alewytes xxij*;’
similarly in 1488. In 1507 ‘alewytes for the yere xiij*;’ in 1512 he
pays sixteen pence for two years. The alderman is still appointed
every year in pursuance of ancient usage, but he has no duties to
discharge.

“The serjeants, besides their duty of attendance upon the mayor « Ser.
“ and Corporation, are sworn officers to execute all attachments, arrests, }°'S-"”
“ &c., within the town and its precincts.”

Before the Act of 1835 two of them were gaolers, one of the debtors’,
the other of the felons’ prison; the third collected the tolls of the
poultry and vegetable market, and the fourth was water-bailiff.

The four serjeants-at-mace were formerly elected by the ‘twelve
men at the common assembly in the Guildhall, and could only be
removed by the same power (1548) ;1 in the next century they were
commonly called ‘ biddels’ (beadles). Towards the end of it (1675),

 

1 Boke of Remembrances, f. 53.
“ Porters,”

OTHER OFFICERS.

to
co
NO

 

Isaac Watts, the father of the hymnologist, on refusing to renounce
the covenant and take the oaths on being appointed ‘ bidell,? was
adjudged to have refused the office and fined £3. On being chosen
again ‘ bidell’ for the ward of St. Michael and St. John, he was freed
from the office for seven years at a fine of forty shillings ; chosen to the
office of constable, October 1, 1703, he was excused on payment of five
guineas, but was not to be let off again under double that amount.?

There are now but two serjeants-at-mace, who, with the town-crier,
are attendants upon the Corporation and Justices.

“ By charter 23 Hen. VI. (p. 155) they are empowered to appoint
“ brokers,” packers,? porters, and carriers, as they had been used to
“do before that charter. The brokers and packers are now out
“ of date, but the porters are, and always have been,‘ united into a
“kind of prescriptive company, under the direction of the Corpora-
“tion. They have a common stock of horses, carriages, &c., and their
“pay is collected by a common steward and divided among them.
“ Their number is limited to seven besides their steward.” The same
number had been prescribed in 1501 and subsequent years. Under
1547 we have a notice of the working of the company. They found
sureties to pay the town their rent. The accounts were made up every
Saturday night before the master, who divided to each his share. They
were to provide four able horses to serve the merchants with, each
horse to be worth at least twenty-six and eightpence.®

“They buy and sell their places ; but must be admitted, and may be
“turned out, by the Common Council, who also appoint the rates of
“the carriage,® which is at present for every pipe of wine 6d., for

 

1 Journals.

2 By order of 1520, neither merchant strangers nor burgesses were permitted
to bargain with ships arriving under Wight or in Hampton Water, and to pay ready
money, by which means coin would be carried out of the realm, contrary to the
king’s laws and hurtful to the town’s custom, but they were to employ brokers,
and eM payments were to be made within the town (Boke of Remembrances, f,
18 b,

3 In 1469 the packers paid for ‘the ferme of the pekkyng,’ £5, 6s. 8d. In
1482 they paid £6 (Steward’s Books), In 1518 one paid to the town for his
place twenty-six shillings and eightpence, and ‘ to dwell in a new house accord-
ing to the order of the town,’

4 Probably they were already associated when, in Close Roll, 4th June (9 Hen.
III.) 1225, the king directed the bailiffs of Southampton to pay them for cellaring
one hundred casks of wine. ‘ Praecipimus vobis quod habere faciatis Jeremannts
Suhamptoniz id quod habere debent pro C doliis vini portandis et ponendis in
celariis nostris de Suht. super canteras, et computabitur vobis ad Scaccarium,’
But in another account shortly before we read of ‘ hiring’ porters,

®> Book of Rememb. H., f. 87 b, In 1469, like the packers, they rendered
account for the ‘ferm’ or rent of their porterwyke (Steward’s Book),

6 “See Laws of the Guild, No, 71.”
OTHER OFFICERS. 213

 

“every hogshead 3d., to any part of the town within the walls; and
“they are answerable for any accident that may happen till the cask
“is safe upon its stand in the cellar.’ The porters of course had a
strict monopoly.?

“Besides these there is a set of inferior porters called bearers, “ Bearers.”
“ because their proper business is to carry such things as may be borne
“ on men’s backs, as corn, coals, &c. These, too, were alwavs under
*‘ the Corporation’s direction, and were formed into a company.

“No bearers have been appointed by the Corporation for many
“ vears; and as all restrictions of this kind are now discountenanced,
“ everybody carries that will. But the credit of the porters and the
“‘ moderate price at which they carry, together with the circumstance
“ of their being obliged to stand to all accidents that may happen in
“the carriage, are sufficient inducements to most people to give them
“ the preference.”

Previously to the Act of 1835 the following offices, not mentioned Officials
in charters, were held in the Corporation :— oe

Aldermen of the wards (see p. 208), four in number ; beadles of the
wards, fourteen, and extra beadles indefinite ; constables, two; auditors
of accounts, indefinite; weigher of wool, one, whose duties, once
important, had become nominal; aulnager, one; measurers of corn
and of coal, indefinite ; scavenger, one; keepers of the keys of the gates,
four: these were always the mayor, the Jate mayor, and two senior
resident aldermen; besides these there were originally regularly appointed
warders of the gates; keepers of the keys of booths, two: these were
supposed to have reference to booths erected at the fair held above Bar;
keepers of the keys of the great chest (where the minutes were kept),
three: these were the mayor and bailiffs, but the mayor really kept the
keys; crier, one, who attended quarter-sessions, kept the weights and
scales, and keys of the market gates, and was paid for crying by those
who employed him; supervisors of land, mayor and aldermen indefinite
in number: they had, however, no duties as such, the property of the
Corporation being entirely managed by the Common Council ; water-
bailiff, one, whose functions in early times seem to have been respon-
sible, but who latterly was in general one of the serjeants-at-mace: he
used to attend the mayor when performing any duty in the capacity
of admiral. His functions of late years had been to attend the

 

1 It appears that the porters sometimes acted as scavengers. In 1667 they
were presented for not having carried away a mixon over against the French
church (Court Leet Book), In 1526 they seem to have paid twenty shillings for
their ‘ferm,’ and to have received half the penalties for casting dung in the
streets, provided they acted as informers and presented the offenders (Boke of

Rememb., f. 27).
Gunner.

His work.

2t4 OTHER OFFICERS.

 

officer of the court of pleas of the town with the silver oar, the
badge of the town’s admiralty, when it had been his duty to make
arrests on the water within low-water mark ; sand-walkers, indefinite :
these formerly watched for waifs and wrecks, and their appointment,
which was made under seal, had been during the French war an
object of desire as a protection against impressment.? There were
latterly between twenty and thirty; wardens of Sendy’s gift, two.

Besides the above there were anciently—

The town gunner, an official who appears in the earliest consecu-
tive town records. In the Steward’s Book of 1457 are some interesting
entries concerning the gunner and his work. His wages were sixpence
a day; his office to superintend the making of gunpowder and the
handling and repair of the guns. In the year above mentioned the
French fleet, which subsequently burnt Sandwich, stood before the
town, and preparations for defence had to be made. Among the
items occur—

Payd to John Branne, gonner, for iiij days, ij*

Item for hys ij men to help hym to make gone powdere for ilij dayes,
ij iiij*

Item to a laborere ij dayes to bete coles for the gonepowder, viij*

Item payd to John of Chamber for iiij dayes to helpe the gonner to make
gonepowder, xx*

Then follow accounts for labour on the ordnance for four days, and
on the bulwarks :—

Item payd for a voyd hoggeshed to put in gonepowder, vj*

Item payd for ij quarters of charcole for fyre to make gone powdere, xij*
also for ‘ coles’ for the same purpose).

Item for ij sevys for to syfte gonnepowder withall, xij*

Then again wages to John Branne, the gunner, and ‘to the sayd John for a
reward for brennyng of his clothys, xij* ’

Item payd for vj whyt lethere bagges to put gonnepowdere in, xiiij?

Item payd to Angell Aldebrand for ij quarter of saltpeter for to make gonne-
powder withall, xxx* iiij*

Item payd to my master the meyre for halfe C brymeston for gone powder,
ix® ij*

Then payments for laying the guns :—

Item payd to Symken for iij partes of a day to help to ley the gret gonne upon
the key, iijt
. Item payd to John Myles, carpenter, for his laboure ij dayes and an halfe
upon the gret gonne, xij*
Robert Carpenter was also paid for work during thirteen days ‘in stokking of

 

1 In 1804 a certain sand-walker belonging to the admiralty jurisdiction of
the Corporation having been impressed, representation was made by the mayor
as admiral of the port to the admiral commanding at Portsmouth, stating the
facts of the case and requesting the discharge of the official, The claim was
immediately allowed (Journal, May 10, 1804).
OTHER OFFICERS.

to
jan
on

 

gonnes’ and laying guns in the new wall, &c, His wages were sixpence a day,

and those of his man fivepence.
Item payd to John Gonner thatt cam fro Sandwyche for hys labor by the
commandment of my master the meyr, xiij*

The gunner was protected, as was usual, with hoardings and shutters : His cover.
Item payd for nayles to nayle the bordes to kevere the gonner withall, iij*

His station was probably at God’s House Tower, and the first affray
was by candlelight.

Item payd for v" of candellus that were wasted in Godes hows towre and in The affray.
the bol:werke, that nyght the furst affray was, v*

In relation to the above incident numerous entries occur of hasty
repairs to the walls, gates, and quays, and of stopping the ‘ ways up to
the walls, there being abundant quay space outside the town, from
which there were many communications (see p. 85). Men had been also
sent in opposite directions to learn news of the fleet :—

Item payd to Richard Assche (see p. 156) for a man to ryde to Portysmothe
to bryng redyng [sailing] tydynges owt of Normandy of the Frenshmen, xij*

Jtem payd to Will. Taylour for hys labour and costes to ryde to Lepe to
inqwere tydynges of the Frenshmen, xj*

Help had been also invoked from other towns, and the soldiers had
to be entertained :—

Item payd to Davy Berebrewer for a pyp of bere that was dronke at the Soldiers
Barreyeate when the furst affray was of the Frenshemen, vj* viij* remenen
Item payd to Richard Smythe for drynkyng potts that were bowght of hym
when the sowdyers of Salysbery dyned in the Frerre [Friary], ix"
Item payd to John Ball for bred that was ete at the Baryeate when the

sowdyers were here, vj*

Item to John Forest for wyn yevan to Thomas Hampton and other gentyl-
men when sowdyers were here, ij*

Item payd to Edward Cateyn for a pyp of wyn that was bowght when the
sowdyers come to town of Salysbery and of other places, liij® iiij*

Tn 1512 (4 Hen. VIII.) a townsman offered his services as gunner at
the yearly salary of twenty-six shillings and eightpence anda gown. He
was to receive twopence for the making of every gun-stone, and seven-
pence a day ‘when he workyth yn makinge of gon-powder, and fourpence
a day for every man so employed by him. A few years later he was ordered
to serve the town in peace and in war at ten shillings per annum,
having also an allowance of four yards of cloth at three shillings and four-
pence per yard for his livery. In1657 the town drummer and the town
gunner each received as annual wages thirteen shillings and fourpence.

The town carpenter is frequently mentioned ; he paid for his place, Carpenter.
and had a livery.

Of the town paviour, scavenger, and chimney-sweep we have

already spoken (see pp. 120, 124).
The town brickmaker with his kiln on the common is referred to in
3rick-
aaker.

Cowherd.

Carrier.

*oot-post.

\linstrels,

216 OTHER OFFICERS.

 

the court leet books of 1575 and elsewhere. In 1623 the price given
him for bricks was nine shillings and sixpence per thousand; a few years
later it was set at ten shillings. In 1704 the assize of bricks, according
to ancient custom, was said to be 10 inches in length, 42 in breadth,
and 24 in thickness.

This officer, who also resided on the heath—the ‘ Cowherds’ ts still
known—seems to have looked after all the common lands, and had the
general superintendence of the cattle there turned out. In 1570 he
made an affidavit, which reads most improbably, that the late Sir Francis
Dawtrey had tried to bribe him to allow his cattle to go on the com-
mon. In the next year we find him at his duties in the Saltmarsh.
It was the law that all men and boys above the age of seven years
should practise the art of shooting; but the cattle in the Saltmarsh
being found a great nuisance, the ‘coward’ was ordered? to keep his
beasts on Sundays and holidays out of the shooting-places. These were
in the Saltmarsh, Houndwell, the Ditches, Castlegreen, and elsewhere.

Besides the cowherd there were four overseers and twelve drovers
of the common.?

The common carrier might also be considered as a town officnl.
He had a distinct monopoly. In 1593, during the season of plague
(July), then daily increasing, the common carrier between the town
and London was kept outside, nor permitted to enter the gates of South-
ampton with his cart and baggage, or by his servants, on any pretence
whatever. The carrier compounded with the town for his place, and
carried merchandise at a certain tariff fixed by the town. In 1602 his
fine was £10. Some years later (1637), his trade falling off from fear
of infection, he was allowed to increase his charges.

Besides the carrier there was a foot-post between the town and
London, who wore a silver badge with the town arms, and had a
monopoly. He usually started on Monday or Tuesday.*

The town minstrels—At one time the town appears to have pos-
sessed a body of musicians, who received regular wages and a livery.
In 1433 they appear to have been but three in number.’ But indepen-
dently of these, strolling bodies of minstrels, under the name and pro-
tection of some great lord or important town, constantly received the
town’s wages and gratuities for their enlivening performances. Thus
the king’s and queen’s minstrels, those of the Earl of Arundel, of my
Lord Cardinal, and innumerable others, are of constant occurrence in

 

1 Boke of Remembrances, f. 106 b. ? Court Leet Books, 1571,

3 Court Leet Books, 1640, 1675.

4 In 1637 a certain person was restrained from going to London on the
Monday and Tuesday to the hindrance of the foot-post.

5 Steward’s Books, 1433-34.
OTHER OFFICERS. 217

 

the town accounts, with their rates of payment. By a warrant of
Privy Council (1593) players had been forbidden to give their enter-
tainments within the city of London or seven miles of it, in conse-
quence of the late sickness, from the fear of infection arising from a
concourse of people; but outside that distance, and in other cities and
towns, they were at liberty to exercise their skill, and were advised to
do so, that they might keep in readiness for her Majesty’s pleasure
whenever she should call for them. Accordingly an order (May 6,
1593) informed the town that a famous company just arrived would
play at convenient times, hours of divine service excepted! The craft
of minstrelsy was, however, becoming discredited. The Act against
beggars and vagabonds (14 Eliz. 1572) had included among the pro-
scribed ‘common players in enterludes, and minstrels not belonging to
any baron of this realm ;’ and a final blow was probably received
under the 39 Eliz. 1597, cap. 4, which repeated the former enactment.
In 1623 we find the town musicians asking for their liveries, which
they received with a broad hint to ask no more, but take what was
given them. A few years later silver badges with the town arms were
distributed to the musicians by the mayor.

As kindred to musiciaus, a notice may be given of stage-players. Players.
The utmost indulgence was given to scenic performances. It seems
to have been the custom to permit the use of the townhall for this
purpose ; but in 1624 the practice was forbidden, owing to the disorder
in which the hall was constantly thrown ; the table, benches, and forms
there set for holding the king’s courts being ‘ by these means broken
and spoiled,’ and when the mayor and officers came for the administra-
tion of justice, especially in pie-poudre courts, which were liable to be
held without much notice, the court was constantly found in an un-
seemly and unsavoury condition.

The ancient Guild Merchant not only regulated the trade and the Guild or
civil government of the town, but preserved a certain religious and ey
eleemosynary character, and had its chaplain with definite duties and
an understood position and allowances.? Subsequently the chaplains,
who appear to have been appointed permanently, received a fixed
stipend of £3, 6s. 8d. per annum, with a gown and hood, worth
generally about thirteen shillings and fourpence, consisting of four yards
of cloth at three shillings and fourpence. Thus in 1457 Sir William *
was Guild-priest at the above amount. In 1478 Sir Harry the same.
Occasionally the mayor’s priest was employed on confidential duties.
It appears that during a visit of King Edward IV. to the town in 1481,

 

1 Liber Notationum, 1593. 2 See Guild Ordinances, Nos. 1, 2, 3.
3 Steward’s Books,
218 OTHER OFFICERS.

 

some knave stole a cruise belonging to the royal silver. Apparently
the thief was suspected to be in the royal retinue, for the king having
moved on to Winchester, Sir David was desired to ride to Hyde Abbey,
where probably the king was lodged, to inquire into the matter, taking
with him a bottle of Malmesey worth sixpence as a present to the
Abbot. On 16th July Sir David again rode to Winchester ‘to make
examynacion for one that toke the crusse,’ and, possibly as a result of
his diplomacy, the thief was detected, for a little after John Smith, the
tailor, received twenty-four shillings and eightpence as a reward" for
riding to London with the king’s silver, by the advice of the mayor and
his brethren.) In 1486 Sir Richard received pay as Guild-priest. In
other years the livery and wages are mentioned, but not the men. In
1501 and 1509 Sir William, who was also Holmehegg or Holmage
chanter, was Guild-priest. Sir Hector held both offices in 1543, and
the price of cloth must have risen, since his gown and tippet cost six
shillings per yard.?

After this signs of the old office disappear from the town books.
In the following century it was the custom for the Corporation to pay
forty shillings as a present to the rector or vicar of the parish in which
the mayor for the time being happened to reside, as a gratuity for the
performance of such offices as might still be required ; and possibly the
parish priest was thus considered Guild or mayor’s chaplain. In
September 1638 the steward was ordered to pay the above sum ‘to
Mr. Edmundson, minister of Holy Rood, the minister of the parish
wherein the mayor dwelleth, as it is accustomed, as a gift and gratuity
from the town. The money was brought to the assembly, and Mr.
Edmundson was sent for to the House to receive it here, as the ministers
heretofore have done, and did receive it as a favour and courtesy from
this House in all thankful acknowledgment.’ §

No later entry has been observed in reference to the mayor’s or
Guild chaplain till the present century, when in January 1805 we find
his salary arranged at £5, 5s. per annum. In December 1820 the
resignation of that office by the Rev. Thomas Mears is recorded after a
service of twenty-five years. On his death in 1835 the Corporation
subscribed twenty guineas to his monument, partly in consequence of
his having been so long their chaplain.* Since that time it has generally
been, and still is, the custom for the mayor to choose the rector or
vicar of the parish in which he resides to act as chaplain during his
year of the mayoralty. The office is of course purely honorary.

 

1 Steward’s Books, 1481-82,

2 Steward’s Books under dates; also Liber Rememb. B.B., fol. ii. for 1491.
3 Journal, September 1638.

4 Journal, December 15, 1820; May 4, 1835.
THE STAPLE. 219

 

Secrion IV.—TZhe Staple.

“There is no mention of a staple in this town before the charter
“93 Henry VI., but they always practised statute merchant,’ and
“ many of the laws of the Guild? are formed upon that plan. Their
book of records on this subject, used even after they had a staple
under the above charter, is still called ‘the book of statutes mer-
chant.’ They did here, as in other places, transact all money
matters this way, though the persons concerned, or the business, had
no relation to merchandise or trade properly so called. A few in-
** stances will show this :—

ce
[<9
“
“

oe

“In the reign of James I., Thomas Fleming, Knt., of North Stoneham, was
“bound to Andrew Munday of Nutshaling, by statute merchant in £3000.

“ William Lisle, Knt., of Wootton, in the Isle of Wight, to John Foyle of the
“ Middle Temple, was bound by statute merchant in £1000, It appears by the
“ defeasances that these were for lands sold by statute merchant,

** Philip Leigh of Testwood bound to Mary Leigh of Testwood, £8000,

“Thomas Mompesson of the Close, Sarum, bound to Eleanor Hodges,
“ £3000.

“Sir John Mill bound to Sir John Clobery, £1000.

“A.D, 1654, Thomas Dummer of Chicknell, in the parish of North Stone-
“ham, in the county of Southampton, yeoman, was bound to John Comfort of
‘* Portsmouth, in the county of Southampton, merchant, by statute merchant, in
« £600. This was discharged a.D. 1662.

“ a.pd. 1658, the Right Hon. Heneage, Earl of Winchelsea, was bound by
“statute merchant to Mary Russell, widow, daughter to John, Lord Viscount
“ Scudamore, in £16,000,

“ The latest statute in this book is dated a.p. 1689. They all run
*** pro merchandisis in hac stapula emptis ’—for merchandise bought
“in this staple—though the transactions had nothing to do with mer-
“ chandise. The Corporation still continue to elect officers of the
“ staple every year, who are sworn into their offices: the mayor taking
“the oath of Mayor of the Staple, besides the oath of mayor as a
* civil magistrate.” ®

SecTion V.—Of Exemption from Prisage.

Prisage of wines—subsequently called the ‘ butlerage’—was an
ancient duty under which the king claimed out of every ship laden

 

1 Dr. Speed, in a portion of his notice of the staple, not printed here, dis-
cusses the difference between statute staple and statute merchant, the former
being only a statute merchant executed before the officers of the staple. This
he instances by a staple recogisance in his hands, in which William Esteney,
co. Southampton, Esquire, was bound to Thomas Colrithe in a hundred marks
sterling for goods bought of him in the staple of Westminster (May 25, 1416).
This was really to secure Colrithe in the possession of an estate, a deed being
annexed reciting the recogisance, and declaring that it shall be void if Colrithe is
maintained in quiet possession. 2 «© See Law 27.”

3 The last vestige of the above was swept away in 1835.
220 PRISAGE.

 

with wines containing twenty tuns or more, two tuns of wine, one
before, the other behind the mast, at his price, which was twenty
shillings for each tun.

“ The payment of this duty was remitted to the burgesses of this town
“ first by a charter, 10 Henry VIII.—which charter does not appear—
“and afterwards by an Act of Parliament, 22 Henry VIII. (1530-31).
“ But as one tun of red wine a year out of the prisage of this port had
“ before this remission been granted to each of the following Abbeys,
“ Beaulieu, Titchfield, Lettely or Netley, Waverley, and St. Denys, for
“the celebration of mass, these five tuns are exempted in the Act.
“‘ Upon the dissolution of abbeys these five tuns, being the goods of
“the Church, returned into the king’s hands; but they were not regu-
“ Jarly paid, which neglect brought on a quo warranto 5 [16 ?] Eliza-
“beth; and in 1608 one Mr. Birchmere, who was prisage-master,
“or farmer of the prisage, sued the town for arrears of these five tuns
“of abbey prisage. The town was cast, and paid 500 marks. After
“which the king, upon their petition, granted them a perpetual
“exemption from paying these five tuns of prisage for the future ; ”
with remission of all arrears from 4th February (27 Hen. VIII.) 1536
to the date of the patent, February 6 (6 Jas. I.), 1609.

* This payment of 500 marks was a great blow to them, and as
“ [this excepted butlerage] was a duty that should have been paid by
“the burgesses, it was agreed by the consent of all that an order
“should be made to lay such a tax upon all wines imported by bur-
“ gesses as the mayor and his brethren should think fit.

“An order was accordingly made the same year (1608) that 2s.
“per tun on all wines bought for the use of burgesses, or bought
“by burgesses of foreigners, be paid, in consideration of the charge
“which the Corporation had been at in paying the arrears of the five
“tuns of abbey prisage, and procuring a charter of discharge from
“that duty for the future, This order to continue for one year.” The
impost was in reality paid several years, and was disputed in 1620,
when reference was made to the recorder, under whose award it was
probably stopped. It was revived in the next century; and in 1708
the collector of customs was desired to receive two shillings per tun
from the burgesses in lieu of prisage, which was said to be after old
custom. It is evident that the reason of the payment had been for-
gotten; after a few years it was finally dropped,

“ They have had some trials at law on this exemption from prisage,
“but their right has always been supported when their proceedings
““ have been regular.”

 

1 Abridged from Dr. Speed.
THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION. 221

 

Section VI.—Of the Admiralty Jurisdiction.

The charter of King John granted the town of Southampton to the
burgesses at farm, together with the port of Portsmouth, and all the
appurtenances, liberties, and customs which belonged in former times
to the farm of the town. It seems probable that some maritime juris-
diction was perpetuated from ancient days under this grant, and
accordingly we find the town assuming very extensive rights before the
formal grant of admiralty by the charter 30 Hen. VI. (1451). In
1239 (see under ‘ Petty Customs’) their rights within the port of Ports-
mouth were acknowledged. In 1285 the burgesses destroyed as hurtful
to navigation a weir which had been constructed at Cadlands by
the Abbot of Titchfield. The Abbot brought his action, but was cast,
the jury finding that no weir had existed within memory, but that
formerly there were piles in the water as if there had anciently been
some such construction, which they were inclined to think had been
destroyed on account of its injury to the shipping! In 1302 (see ‘ Petty
Customs’) we find the burgesses giving a lease of the customs over a
wide extent which was clearly identical with the port. “Ina trial, 17
“ Edward JI. (1324), with Lymington about the petty customs it is
“set forth that from Hurst to Langston is within the port of South-
“ ampton.

“ The admiralty jurisdiction was first granted by charter 30 Henry
“VI. (1451); the extent of it was to be extremities of the ancient
“ port ””’—that is to say, from Langston on the east, including the
port of Portsmouth, and from Hurst on the west, including Lymington,
together with all tidal harbours, rivers, creeks, &c., within the boundary
line.

According to the settlement of the bounds of the port of South-
ampton as returned into the Exchequer in the 32 Chas. II. (Mich.
term) 1680, the line on the west was drawn from Christ Church Head,
thence south-east to the Needles, then eastward in a supposed straight
course to the west end of the Brambles, thence to Hill Head on the
mainland at the mouth of the Southampton Water, and so up the

 

1 Abbrev, Plac, Mich, 13-14 Ed. 1.

2 The grant (July 14, 1628) to Mary Wandesford, wife of Sir George
Wandesford, and daughter of Robert Pamplin, late yeoman of his Majesty’s
robes, and to her sister Margaret, wife of William Wandesford, and their heirs,
of all the mudlands between high and low water mark in the haven of South-
ampton, and other specified parts of Hampshire, with power to ‘inn’ or enclose
them, gave great offence to the town’s people as an infringement of their admiralty ;
and on September 26, 1636, Dame Mary Wandesford petitioned the Privy
Council for redress against certain of the burgesses for disturbance of her en-
closures. Commissioners were appointed, who met at the Dolphin, and summoned
the defendants before them (October 14), but they failed to appear.

Ancient
rights,

T4512.

Port limits.
Exercise of
powers,

Itchen
Ferry,

THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.

to
NS
N

 

stream of Redbridge, including all bays, channels, roads, bars, strands,
harbours, &c. On the east the limits were curtailed, as Portsmouth
was excluded ; though in the settlement of that port, as returned into
the Court of Exchequer at the same time, it is described as ‘a member
of the port of Southampton,’ as is also the port of Cowes."

“Jn consequence of their grant they exercised every branch of
“ admiralty power: they had in the town an admiralty court and
“ prison, they claimed all wrecks, took cognisance of fishing in the
“ water within their precincts, which they suffered none to do but such
“ fishermen as were licensed by them. And as by the admiralty law
“ it is sea everywhere to the first bridge, they claimed a right to exercise
“that power as far as Redbridge on the river Test, and as far as Wood
“ Mill on the river Itchen.

“There are many instances in the Journals of their exercising full
“ power on all the water within their district. Thus :”—

In 1474 a man was paid for going to Langston along the coast to
“ look after wrecks belonging to the town’s admiralty; in 1499 a mast
“ was brought as a wreck from the Isle of Wight; in 1502 a man was
“ fined for dragging oysters ;” in 1569 the men of Keyhaven were pre-
sented for ‘perking yells at all times’—pricking eels at unlawful
seasons, “In 1610 Sir Thomas West of Testwood prosecuted some
“ licensed fishermen for fishing below Redbridge. The House advised
“ them to use Sir Thomas well, and no doubt he would withdraw his
“ action, which they supposed to be grounded on their fishing with
“ unlawful nets, and not in opposition to the town’s right. The
“ action was withdrawn. In 1611 owners of boats were ordered to
“bring oysters to the quay for the marshal of the admiralty to lay
“ them in convenient places in the harbour, according to ancient cus-
“tom, In 1632 the Corporation granted a warrant to the fishermen
“ of Itchen to take away guns from all persons shooting at fowl upon
“ the sea within their admiralty. In 1642 they gave a grant for fish-
“ing in Itchen ferry river; in 1649 their right of fishing there was
“ disputed; and the same year Mr. Peter Clungeon surrendered his
“ Jease for fishing and fowling in the Itchen ferry river. So it appears
“ that they were cast in the dispute.” In 1658 the court leet pre-
sented that the fishing between Southampton and Redbridge had been
usurped by Mr. Thomas Knowles and others, to the hurt of the place.

“In 1613 it was ordered that the burgesses and their servants
“should pay nothing for their passage over Itchen ferry; and the

 

1 Modern Practice of Exchequer (1730), pp. 40, 95, 105; also below,
‘Courts,’ In 1432 the customer at Southampton was desired to appoint
deputies at Lymington, Newport, and Portsmouth (Rot. Parl. iv. 417).
THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.

ie)
to
Go

 

“ferrymen were presented for taking money of them.) About the
“same time it was ordered that the fishermen of Itchen ferry should
“lay gravel on the shore on the town side of the ferry. But these
“ matters relating to the ferry seem rather to depend on their having
“the liberty to land their passengers on the town side than on the
admiralty jurisdiction.

“The passage to Hythe was formerly a ferry, and the Corporation
once applied for a charter for it; on which Sir Christopher Parkins,
one of the king’s Masters of Requests, sent to them for information
“concerning this matter. Their answer was, that by virtue of their
“admiralty jurisdiction they had always settled the price of the pas-
sage as follows: for a man and a horse 3d., for a single man 1d.,
market people }d., a cow 3d., 20 sheep 6d. But nothing came of
this, and that ferry has been dropped many years.2

““a.p. 1684, some of Cowes were prosecuted for a riot within the
“ town’s admiralty.

“ The same year an accident happened which put an end to their
“usual exertion of their admiralty jurisdiction, The case was as
“ under :—#

“A Dutch ship, laden with wines, had been by stress of weather
“stranded on Calshot Spit, which is within the admiralty of South-
“ampton. When the mayor heard of it he hired a vessel, and taking
“with him some of the burgesses and some of the custom-house
“ officers, went down to save what he could for the owners ; his com-
“pany, besides mariners and labourers, being about ten _ persons.
“When he came down, he found that one Robert Wetherick had
“seized the ship and cargo as a wreck for Sir Robert Holmes, gover-
“nor of the Isle of Wight, as admiral of that part of the coast. Upon
“the mayor’s declaring the place to be within the admiralty of
“Southampton, Wetherick went away to get, as he said, further
“orders from Sir Robert Holmes, and the mayor set his people to
* work to save the wines by hoisting them out of the wreck into a galliot
“ hoy which he had provided for that purpose. The next day, while
“they were at work, Wetherick returned with several others, and
“ again seized the wines, declaring that he didit by order of Sir Robert
“ Holmes. However, after two or three hours’ interruption, there
“ being some danger of the wines being spoiled, they suffered the men

€

a

ce

ce

ce

ce

ce

 

1 Captain Smith, the builder afterwards of Jesus Chapel, Peartree Green, had
the ferry at this time, and had ‘ oftentimes willed the passengers aforesaid [z.e.,
the ferrymen] to take nothing of the burgesses’ (Journal, August 6, 1613).

2 It is now a regular steam-ferry.

3 See above, p, 221, as to extent of port at this period.

4 « Brief of the case in my hands,”

Hythe
Ferry.
“« Journal.”

224 THE ADMIRALTY JURISDICTION.

 

“of Southampton to go on, as well as themselves, and when the
“ galliot hoy was full, the mayor and his company sailed with her
“for Southampton, in order to bring the said wines to the king’s
“ custom-house there, being upwards of ninety hogsheads. But when
“ they came about half way up the river, Wetherick and his company,
“ about twenty, who had pursued them, entered their ship armed with
“ ouns and drawn swords, by the command, as they said, of Sir Robert
“ Holmes, and did cut and beat several persons on board the said hoy,
“and threaten to kill the persons thereupon if they did not depart,
“and also the master of the hoy if he did not sail back to Cowes with
“the wines. On which the mayor and his company gave up the
“point. But Sir Robert Holmes afterwards lodged a complaint
“against them at the Council Board, where a determination was
“ given against the Corporation.

“This check put a stop to the career of their ‘admiralty jurisdic-
“ tion,’ though they exercised it afterwards in some points, as :—

“a.D. 1687, they granted a deputation to the men of Hythe to
“collect a duty on vessels to repair the causeway there, being within
“ the town’s admiralty.

“Tt appears that in 1707 they had some dispute with the Duke of
“ Bolton on the town’s admiralty, but the matter does not seem to have
“been decided. In 1708 it was ordered that a proper person should be
“sent by Mr. Mayor to a court of admiralty to be held at Portsmouth
“by the Duke of Bolton, with a letter to his grace’s judge advocate,
“and a protestation declaring the town’s rights. It appears likewise
“that in 1709 some steps were taken towards an attempt to recover
“ the admiralty jurisdiction, but the affair was dropped.

“ Within the memory of some persons now [1770] living they have
** given licenses to fishermen, and have gone once a year to fish them-
“ selves as high as Redbridge and Woodmill; but these have been
“long left off, and they have now scarce any remains of their ad-
“ miralty except their silver oar, and their going sometimes a kind of
“ circuit to keep admiralty court at Lymington and some others places,
“‘ where they sometimes got some small matters of wrecks. But this
“is in general Jooked on as a mere formality, and is reckoned to be a
« jaunt of pleasure rather than of business.”

Admiralty rights were finally extinguished in 1835.

Southampton is now the head-port for Christchurch, Lymington,
Keyhaven, Beaulieu, Hamble, and Redbridge; its custom-house is

 

1 The mayor was summoned to attend the King and Council on January 29,
1684-85, to prove the right of admiralty and the bounds thereof, then questioned
by Sir Robert Holmes, vice-admiral of Hants, The House ordered the records
to be searched and the case legally got up (Journal, January 21, 1684-85).
PETTY CUSTOMS. 225

 

mentioned below under ‘Docks.? The harbour of Southampton com-
mences at Hill Head, the boundary between the port of Southampton
and Portsmouth, and stretches across in a right line to a point just
below Calshot Castle.

Section VII,—fetty Customs.

The petty customs were the duties on merchandise payable to the
town, as determined by tables kept by the Corporation, from all places
within the limits of the port. These places were vaguely described in
the early charters, but are set forth in a lease of the customs, 30 Ed.
I. (1302), from Peter de Lyons, no doubt the mayor, and twenty-one
others, to Robert le Mercer and seven others, in which the members of
the town demised under the lease, and for which the fee-farm of £200
per annum was rendered, are said to be Portemue, Hamele (Hamble),
Linnentone, Scharprixe (on the east side of the Lymington river, south
of Walhampton), Kyhaven, and Rumbrygge.1| Within the lease were
included the rent of the land-gable, and all profits of amercements,
forfeitures of bakers and other.

Disputes on the petty customs were of early and frequent occur-
rence: first, in regard to Portsmouth. The charter of John (June 29,
1199) had granted to the burgesses of Southampton the perpetual farm
of their town, together with the port of Portsmues, and all customs and
privileges which belonged to the farm of the town of Southampton in
the time of Henry II. On plea of this grant the burgesses claimed
Jurisdiction not only in the port, but in the town of Portsmouth; a
claim brought to issue in 1239 (24 Hen. III.), when the burgesses of
Southampton having sued those of Portsmouth for damages on the
ground of their having taken certain customs, fines, &c., within the
port of Portsmouth, a concord was arranged, by which the burgesses
of Portsmouth renounced claim to customs, &c., arising within the port
of Portsmouth, and acknowledged the right of Southampton, and those
of Southampton gave up claim to any rights outszde the limits of the
same port; and to avoid future disputes it was agreed, with the royal
licence, that henceforth all amercements and profits from strangers,
both in the town and in the waters of the port, should be equally
divided between the burgesses of Portsmouth and those of Southampton,
and that each party should have a bailiff of its own appointed to hear
and hold pleas in the town of Portsmouth, who should proceed by jury,
and make oath to each other faithfully to divide and adjudge all profits
equally between the two towns; the king’s rights to great sea-fish
and his other profits of the sea being preserved. It was further

 

1 Indenture in Corporation Archives,

Conten-
tions with
Ports-
mouth,
1239.
Lyming-
ton, 1324.

e

DDG PETTY CUSTOMS.

 

provided that all pleas of the crown happening within the port of
Portsmouth should be presented to the king and his justices by the
coroners and bailiff of Southampton, but that all arising within the
town of Portsmouth should be presented by the burgesses of Ports-
mouth and their bailiff. On these conditions the burgesses of South-
ampton remitted to those of Portsmouth all the damages sct forth in
their plea, the latter paying five marks of silver for this remission}
Dated November 21 (24 Hen. LIT.), 1239.

The port of Portsmouth continued to be a member of the liberties
of the town of Southampton according to the charters of the latter; as,
for instance, in those of greatest importance, in the 23 and 25 Hen. VI.,
and in the last governing charter of 1640 (16 Chas. I.) It so remained
as a more or less acknowledged fact? till the changes of 1835.

The earliest extant dispute with Lymington on the petty customs
was in 17 Ed. II., when Geoffrey Scurlag, the mayor, William Culhout,
and eighteen others, ‘men’ of the town of Lymington, were attached
to answer to the king and to the mayor, bailiffs, and other men of the
community of the town of Southampton in a plea of trespass, in taking
tolls at Lymington, which belonged to the farm of Southampton. The
burgesses of Southampton represented that they held their town and
port, extending from beyond Hurst to Langstone, of the king at a fee-
farm of £220 per annum; that on that account certain customs of all
merchandises within those limits belonged to them, except in the
cases of such merchants as were free by royal charter; they therefore
prayed damages to the amount of #500 from the men of Lyming-
ton for the invasion of their rights by taking customs of salt, corn,
barley, and oats, cloth, wax, and other wares, and for assaulting
Walter de Depeden, the king’s customer, who was agent for the
town of Southampton at Lymington. In defence it was denied that
Lymington was within the port, the assault on the customer was also
denied. The jury, however, found that all the water between Hurst
and Langstone was of the port and within the precinct of the port of
the town of Southampton; that the king’s progenitors, all the while
they held the said town of Southampton in their own hands, had
received the whole custom arising from wares and merchandise brought
by ship, as wel] at Lymington and Southampton or elsewhere, before
they demised the said town to the mayor and community; that the
said mayor and community ever since they had held the town at ferm
had in like manner received the same; that Lymington was within
the bounds and precincts of the port of Southampton; that the custom

 

1 Oak Book. Dr. Speed has this document in full.
2 See above under ‘ Admiralty,’ and below under ‘ Admiralty Court,’
PETTY CUSTOMS.

bo
ta
NI

 

of goods and wares brought by ship to Lymington belonged of right to
Southampton, and had hitherto been enjoyed by the mayor and com-
munity of Southampton. Damages were given against Lymington to
the amount of #200, while it was found that Walter de Depeden had
not been beaten.!

‘Similar fate has often attended Lymington on this subject. But
“ 4.D, 1730 the people of that place had the address to get their cause
“moved from the courts above to the courts of assize, where a jury
“ from their own neighbourhood gave a verdict in their favour. And
“ here I think the matter has rested ever since with regard to Lyming-
“ton, The Corporation have had many controversies on this subject,
“but I learn from a late conversation with some of their members
* that they have of Jate years found the course of the law so averse to
“ their claim that they at present confine themselves merely to the
“ port of the town.”

About 1730 the borough of Lymington petitioned Sir Robert
Walpole, first Lord of the Treasury, that as their harbour was situated
twenty-five miles from the port of Southampton, of which it was a
creek, it might for the convenience of merchants be made a member of
that port. Accordingly the Government established a custom-house at
Lymington, subordinated to the port of Southampton, which is con-
tinued to the present day.

Constant feuds arose in the medieval towns on the payment of toll
and custom, as was inevitable from the practice of granting immunity
by royal charter from such payments, or from some of them, to the
inhabitants of various cities and boroughs or other bodies; a list of the
towns free of dues in Southampton will be found at the end of this section.

In 1239 a controversy with Marlborough about toll extorted by the
‘good men’ of Southampton contrary to the privileges of Marlborough
was settled (June 17) by an arrangement that each should be free in the
other’s town.?

Again, in 1260, the bailiffs of Southampton, Roger Noel and John
Fortin, were attached to answer the burgesses of Bristol for a similar
infringement of privilege, the men of Bristol claiming freedom from
toll, passage, and other customs throughout England, Normandy, and
Wales under a charter of Henry II. The case was not decided on its
merits; the bailiffs alleging in reply and producing in court the charter
of the then present king, Henry ITI., which exempted them from being
impleaded out of the borough.’

A few years later a controversy about tolls occurred with Netley

 

1 Madox, F. B., p. 220.
2 Corp. Document (enrolled chart. 23 Hen. III. m, 3).
3 Abbrev. Plac. Mich. 44 and 45 Hen, III,

Marl-
borough,
1239.

Bristol,
1260,
Netley
Abbey,
1288,

Bishop of
Winches-
ter, 1312.

New
Sarum,
1329.

Coventry,
1456.

228 PETTY CUSTOMS.

 

Abbey, which had been founded in 1239. In 1288 the bailiffs of the
town had distrained certain ‘men’ of the Abbot for payment of toll,
whereupon the Abbot brought his action against the bailiffs, Robert le
Barbur, Robert le Mercer, and Peter de Lyons, in 1290, pleading that
by charter of Henry III. and confirmation of the present king, his pre-
decessors and himself, the Abbots of Netley, and their ‘ men’ of Soteshal,
Walonfolling, Hun, and Totington, had been made free of toll through-
out the kingdom. Adjustment was made in 1290 by freeing the Abbot
and his men from toll on goods bought and sold for their necessities, as
food, clothing, and the like, but binding it on them, notwithstanding
their charter, if they went into the market like common merchants."

The bishops of Winchester claimed freedom for their ‘men’ from
paying toll or custom at all times within the borough of Southampton ;
and in 1312 Bishop Woodlock proceeded against the town in conse-
quence of the bailiffs having demanded toll and stallage from one of his
men, whose goods they had also distrained on his refusing to pay.
Judgment went against the town.”

In the 2 Ed. III. (1329) a suit between the city of New Sarum
and the town of Southampton concerning certain tolls and customs
levied at Southampton from the citizens of New Sarum was brought
to concord in the following shape: that the inhabitants of New Sarum
should for ever be free from all toll, murage, pavage, quayage, pontage,
&c., in the town of Southampton, and within the port and liberties of
the same; but in consideration of the mayor and community of South-
ampton holding the town in fee-farm, the citizens of New Sarum agreed
to pay the usual custom on the several articles there and then specified
in the agreement.®

In 1456 (34 Hen. VI.) an agreement between the towns of South-
ampton and Coventry arranged that the merchants of neither place
should pay toll to the other.*

As a matter of revenue, in later centuries the petty customs were
let to Nathaniel Mills in 1632 for five years at £135 per annum; in
1645 to William Higgins and James Clungeon, together with cranage,
wharfage, gauging, weighing, and hallage of linen cloth, hostelage, and
anchorage of ships, keelage of boats, &c., and the loft over the tin-
house called the linen-hall, as also the cellar called the weigh-house,
together with all beam rights, scales, &c., for five years at £132 per
annum. Scheduled to the lease is an inventory of the weights belong-
ing to the town. In 1654 the same were leased to John Bachelor for

 

1 Rot, Parl, vol. i. p. 20. 2 Oak Book.
8 Oak Book. Dr. Speed has this document.
+ Document (Penes Corp.)
PETTY CUSTOMS, 207

 

of goods and wares brought by ship to Lymington belonged of right to
Southampton, and had hitherto been enjoyed by the mayor and com-
munity of Southampton. Damages were given against Lymington to
the amount of #200, while it was found that Walter de Depeden had
not been beaten.1

“Similar fate has often attended Lymington on this subject. But
“ a.D. 1730 the people of that place had the address to get their cause
“ moved from the courts above to the courts of assize, where a jury
“ from their own neighbourhood gave a verdict in their favour. And
“ here I think the matter has rested ever since with regard to Lyming-
“ton. The Corporation have had many controversies on this subject,
“but I learn from a late conversation with some of their members
“that they have of late years found the course of the law so averse to
“their claim that they at present confine themselves merely to the
“ port of the town.”

About 1730 the borough of Lymington petitioned Sir Robert
Walpole, first Lord of the Treasury, that as their harbour was situated
twenty-five miles from the port of Southampton, of which it was a
creek, it might for the convenience of merchants be made a member of
that port. Accordingly the Government established a custom-house at
Lymington, subordinated to the port of Southampton, which is con-
tinued to the present day.

Constant feuds arose in the medieval towns on the payment of toll
and custom, as was inevitable from the practice of granting immunity
by royal charter from such payments, or from some of them, to the
inhabitants of various cities and boroughs or other bodies; a list of the
towns free of dues in Southampton will be found at the end of this section.

In 1239 a controversy with Marlborough about toll extorted by the Man-
‘good men’ of Southampton contrary to the privileges of Marlborough oe
was settled (June 17) by an arrangement that each should be free in the
other’s town.2

Again, in 1260, the bailiffs of Southampton, Roger Noel and John Bristol,
Fortin, were attached to answer the burgesses of Bristol for a similar =e
infringement of privilege, the men of Bristol claiming freedom from
toll, passage, and other customs throughout England, Normandy, and
Wales under a charter of Henry II. The case was not decided on its
merits; the bailiffs alleging in reply and producing in court the charter
of the then present king, Henry III., which exempted them from being
impleaded out of the borough?

A few years later a controversy about tolls occurred with Netley

 

1 Madox, F. B., p. 220.
2 Corp, Document (enrolled chart, 23 Hen. III. m. 3),
3 Abbrev. Plac. Mich, 44 and 45 Hen, III.
Netley
Abbey,
1288,

Bishop of
Winches-
ter, 1312.

New
Sarum,
1329.

Coventry,
1456.

228 PETTY CUSTOMS.

 

Abbey, which had been founded in 1239. In 1288 the bailiffs of the
town had distrained certain ‘men’ of the Abbot for payment of toll,
whereupon the Abbot brought his action against the bailiffs, Robert le
Barbur, Robert le Mercer, and Peter de Lyons, in 1290, pleading that
by charter of Henry III. and confirmation of the present king, his pre-
decessors and himself, the Abbots of Netley, and their ‘ men’ of Soteshal,
Walonfolling, Hun, and Totington, had been made free of toll through-
out the kingdom. Adjustment was made in 1290 by freeing the Abbot
and his men from toll on goods bought and sold for their necessities, as
food, clothing, and the like, but binding it on them, notwithstanding
their charter, if they went into the market like common merchants.’

The bishops of Winchester claimed freedom for their ‘men’ from
paying toll or custom at all times within the borough of Southampton ;
and in 1312 Bishop Woodlock proceeded against the town in conse-
quence of the bailiffs having demanded toll and stallage from one of his
men, whose goods they had also distrained on his refusing to pay.
Judgment went against the town.?

In the 2 Ed. III. (1329) a suit between the city of New Sarum
and the town of Southampton concerning certain tolls and customs
levied at Southampton from the citizens of New Sarum was brought
to concord in the following shape: that the inhabitants of New Sarum
should for ever be free from all toll, murage, pavage, quayage, pontage,
&c., in the town of Southampton, and within the port and liberties of
the same; but in consideration of the mayor and community of South-
aipton holding the town in fee-farm, the citizens of New Sarum agreed
to pay the usual custom on the several articles there and then specified
in the agreement.?

In 1456 (34 Hen. VI.) an agreement between the towns of South-
ampton and Coventry arranged that the merchants of neither place
should pay toll to the other.*

As a matter of revenue, in later centuries the petty customs were
let to Nathaniel Mills in 1632 for five years at £135 per annum; in
1645 to William Higgins and James Clungeon, together with cranage,
wharfage, gauging, weighing, and hallage of linen cloth, hostelage, and
anchorage of ships, keelage of boats, &c., and the loft over the tin-
house called the linen-hall, as also the cellar called the weigh-house,
together with all beam rights, scales, &c., for five years at £132 per
annum. Scheduled to the lease is an inventory of the weights belong-
ing to the town. In 1654 the same were leased to John Bachelor for

 

1 Rot. Parl. vol. i. p. 20. 2 Oak Book.
3 Oak Book. Dr, Speed has this document.
+ Document (Penes Corp.)
PETTY CUSTOMS. 229

 

three years at £135; in 1658 they were let for £100; in 1659 for
£85; in 1661 to Nicholas Caplin at £110; in 1723 to John Grove
for ten years at £30, he paying, however, the fee-farm of #50 per
annum.) Later in the century they produced #150 a year.

“ The burgesses pay no petty customs, and a burgess entering the
“ goods of a person not a burgess to defraud the Corporation of the
“ petty customs, is punished with disfranchisement. In 1700 it was
“ ordered that if a foreigner—that is, a person not a burgess—bring
“ goods to the port, and an inhabiting burgess buy them and enter
“them in his own name, that burgess shall pay the petty customs.”

The petty customs were abolished in 1803 (see page 39).

The following list of free towns is taken from ‘ The book of rates of the toll,
brocage, pontage, petty custom, and all other duties due, belonging, or apper-
taining unto the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses of the town of Southampton...
according to the ancient custom of the said town time out of mind.’

At the end of a long list of duties? arranged alphabetically occurs the
following note: ‘The tenants of the Duke of Lancaster renewed their charter
the xxij of November in the third year of Queen Elizabeth, in which charters are

Kings Somborne,

Romsey,

Stockbridge,
and the manor of Hartley and members of the same are free of prestations,
theolony, pannage, lastage, tallage, carriage, passage, package, and terrage.’

* Hereafter follow the names of such towns and places as are free ; and if
any other claim to be free, let their charters be seen, by what kings, and in what
year they were made free.

 

Andever, for all the company of Co{l]chester.
freemen, Canterbury.
Alresford, free. Coventry.
All the tenants of St, Swithun’s, Chichester.
free. Dartmouth,
All the burgesses of Winchester, Downton,
All the honours of England. Dyndbeth,
Bristow, Exeter,
Broughton, Eastiverley,
Bishopstoake, Glocester,
Brember, Guildford,
Brightport. Gomesester,
Basingstoake. Heartford, East.
Burford. Hillstone.
Beaverly, Haverford,
Bath. Harwitch,
Bedford. Hull,
1 Leases,

2 Given by Dr. Speed in his Appendix, but omitted here from want of room,
Trinity or
Chapel
Fair,
1496.

Trinity
Sunday
and three
following
days.

to

 

30 FAIRS.
Honours of Wallingford. Reading.
Hoverton. Torksey.
Ipswitch. Twyford.
Kings Sumborne, Shrovesbury,
Kibolis Evanton. St. Cross,

London. Salisbury—half custom.
Lancaster. South Howton,
Lockerley. Scarborough,

Little Sumborne. Stafford,

Lyme. Vyes.

My Lord of Winchester’s tenants, Weekham.

My Lord of Hyde for his house. Wells.
Marleborough. Worcester.
Norwich, Weymouth,
Nottingham, Walton,
Newcastle-upon-Tyne. Wallingford.

New Colledge. Witch,

Oxford, Wymborne.
Overton. Winchester College.
Portsmouth. Yarmouth,
Plymouth, York,’

Then follows ‘The rate of brocage and pontage,’ and an attestation to the

correctness of the copy of the foregoing by Thomas Mason, mayor, and others,
dated 2d August, 20 Car, I., 1644.

C

a

“ce

“i

Section VIII.—AFazrs.

“These are not mentioned in any of the general charters, but all
depend on particular grants.

Trinity Fair.

“* Henry, by the grace of God King of England and France, Lord of Ireland,
to all to whom these presents shall come, greeting : Know ye that, for the devo-
tion which we bear to the holy and glorious Virgin, Mother of God, and for the
love which we have and long time have had for our town of Southampton,
considering that by a confluence of our subjects and others the said town
may be greatly improved and advanced in wealth and prosperity, and in order
that a greater confluence of people may be made there in future, we have, of
our special grace and mere motion, granted to our beloved in Christ the Mayor,
Aldermen, Sheriff, Bailiffs, Burgesses, and community of the said Town of
Southampton, and their successors, as also to William Gefferey, hermit of the
Chapel of the Holy Trinity and the blessed Mary aforesaid, a Fair and Market to
be held every year at and about the said Chapel of the Holy and Undivided
Trinity, near the said town of Southampton, on the Feast of the Holy Trinity
and for three days immediately following after the said Feast, in which Chapel
the said glorious Virgin is very frequently honoured by the faithful in Christ.
To have and to hold the said Fair and Market, with free ingress and egress
for all our subjects coming thither to trade. To hold the said Fair by the
aforesaid Mayor, &c., and their successors, and also by the aforesaid William
Gefferey, hermit, on the said Feast and three days as is aforesaid, during our
pleasure. In testimony whereof we have made these our letters patent :
THE COURT LEET. 233

 

diers being appointed to keep the peace by day and to watch by night.
On the Wednesday at noon the glove and pole were taken down by
order of the mayor, with which ceremony all was over. The bailiff
entertained the Corporation in his booth at the opening and during
the continuance of the fair, and unfortunates who dreaded another
kind of bailiff enjoyed immunity from arrest within its precincts. The
glories of the opening day began to fade very sensibly about 1840, and
within the last few years have become finally extinguished. The fair
itself, reduced to one day, is now held in the cattle ground near the
railway. It had long ceased to be of value to the Corporation, and its
advantage to the general public was questionable. In 1751 the profits
of the borough from Trinity Fair were leased out for seven years at a
guinea and a half per annum, and in 1744 those from St. Mark’s Fair
were demised for three years at two guineas each year.

The patent of 42 Elizabeth (1600) concerning Shrovetide, St.
Mark’s, and St. Andrew’s Fairs was also a confirmation, and not an
original grant, at least as regards the two former, for the court leet
called attention to them in 1596. They might have wanted a spur.
Powers were sought in the Northam Bridge Act, 36 Geo. IIT. 1796, for Above Bar
putting an end to St. Mark’s or Above Bag Fair, held on the 6th and **"
7th May, and in 1875 it was abolished. The two other fairs, never Two
very flourishing, were in existence at the beginning of the century, pi

but had disappeared before 1834.

Section IX.—TZhe Courts of the Town and County of the Town.

Court Leet.

The court leet, commonly called the Law-day, as being the ordi-
nary tribunal, the most ancient local criminal court here as every-
where else, was held before the mayor, aldermen, and discreets of the
town on Hock Tuesday, z.e., on the third Tuesday after Easter Thira
Day, most anciently at Cutthorn, but afterwards frequently in the j¥es¢y
Guildhall, the town-clerk being of later times steward and judge of Easter.
the court, the sheriff foreman of the jury; the latter being summoned
originally from the burgesses alone, but more recently with greater
latitude.

The office of the court leet was to inquire regularly and _periodi- Duties.
cally into the proper condition of watercourses, roads, paths, and
ditches ; to guard against all manner of encroachments upon the public
rights, whether by unlawful enclosure or otherwise; to preserve land-
marks, to keep watch and ward in the town, and overlook the com-
mon lands, adjusting the rights over them, and restraining in any
Court Leet
Books,

Apparel,

234 THE COURT LEET.

 

case their excessive exercise, as in the pasturage of cattle; to guard
against the adulteration of food, to inspect weights and measures, to
look in general to the morals of the people, and to find a remedy for
each social ill and inconvenience. More than this, it took cognisance
of grosser crimes of assault, arson, burglary, larceny, manslaughter,
murder, treason, and every felony at common Jaw. These offences
were presented by the leet jury as indictors, and action was taken
accordingly. But for the greater number of matters brought before
the leet the remedy was summary by amercement or fine.

In ancient time one most important function of the court leet
was taking the pledges of freemen, who, all above the age of twelve
years, with certain exceptions, were bound to be sworn and enrolled.
A laxity in this practice prevailed, however, early in the seventeenth
century. Under 1615 we find the complaint ‘that many voung men
and youths have been dwelling here a year and a day and have not
been sworn to the king’s obedience as they ought, the town-clerk to
have care thereof.’ But in the margin of the court leet book it is
justly objected, probably by the inculpated official himself, ‘The jury
ought to inquire of this and make presentment upon their oath, and
not to refer it to the steward of the court.’ From this period back-
wardness of enrolment in the court books was not uncommonly
presented.

The court leet books are extant from 1550 to the present day,
with here and there a gap of a more or less serious extent. After the
middle of the eighteenth century they become of little interest, and are
at the present time mere repetitions of the presentment as to the
metes and bounds of the town, made year after year at the formal
meeting of the court.

Considerable use has been already made of these books in the pre-
sent work. Entries relating to trade regulation will also be found
below. The following notices may be added in this place :—

Under 1576 we find some curious regulations as to apparel ; and
first for the ladies :—

‘ Dyvers women in this towne doo not weare whyte cappes but hattes, con-
trarie to the statute, as yt may appeare by the churchewardens theire present-
ments every week,’

The names of the offenders follow. But on the whole subject
of attire the jury delivered themselves in the following grave
fashion :—

‘The apparell in tymes past used comenlie to be worne by the maiors, alder-
men, shreffes, and baylifes, and there wyves within the Towne of Suthampton,

particularly followethe confessyd by Mr. John Gregory, alderman, and William
Maister, the Towne Stewarde, eyther of them of thage of Ixxv. at the lest.
THE COURT LEET. 2

oo
On

 

Apparel of the Maior and Aldermen,—A gowne of skarlett furryd wt mar-
tirnes! or foynes 2 for the wynter, and faced with satten damaske or uther the
lyke silke being blacke or russett collar for the summer,

A tippett of velvett worne upon the same gowne.

A gowne of vyolett in grayne3 faced or furred w' the like furres and the like
silke, and other gownes of fyne clothe garded withe velvet and faced with silke.

A jackett or coote of velvett, damaske satten, chamlett or wustede w' a welt
or garde of velvett.

A dublett sleved wt velvett, satten damaske, or suche like silke with buttons
of sylver,

Hosse of fine puke * or skarlett w' garters of silke.

Crest cappes withe broade silke lase about them,

Short gownes of fyne clothe.

Hattes of velvet and silke throme.®

Ringes of gold of dyvers waightes, some of more and some of lesse waight.

The apparrell of the Meres and Aldermen’s Wiefes.—Trayne gownes of skarlett
furred and lyned, wt gray amys ® wt broade weltes” of velvett.

Trayne gownes of violett in grayne furred and lyned wt gray amyss wt
broade weltes of velvett.

Gownes of murrey® in grayne or other fyne clothe w' purfulls® or gardes ® of
velvett blacke or lawne, and cuffes of velvett at handes.

Kyrtills!° of damaske satten chamlett and worsted withe iij weltes of velvett
upon them,

Peticotes of scarlett and other fine redd w' a belt of redd velvett .

For the attyer of there heddes,—Bonettes of velvett, mynever cappis, atyer
of fyne lawne, hattes of silke throme, crest cappis and rownde cappes of velvett.

Partlettes 11 for there neckes of velvett w' buttens of golde enamyled and part-
lettes of lawne.

Girdelles of sylver and gylte called harnes gerdelles sett w' stone and perle
and other goldsmythes worke enamyled, tache }* hookes of sylver and gold ena
miled and sett wt stone and perle, and the lace of goldsmythes worke, gyrdells
of silke imbossed wt silver, greate pynes }° of silver and gold enamiled, purses of
velvett and silke.

About there necke a chayne of golde and dothe (sic) were braslettes and
ringes, some of more waight and some of lesser waight.

A gowne of crymson in grayne furred w* fytche 1 or fased wt Saint Thomas
worsted or satten of Sypris.

The apparrell of the Shreves and Baylicfes.—A gowne of violett in grayne
furred and faced, the like furre and silke.

Other gownes furred with badger, foxe, and lame.

Jackettes or coates of satten chamlett or worsted garded with velvett.

Dublettes 16 of satten or wosted,

Hattes of sylke throme.

Hosse of fyne clothe playne,

Girdills and garters of silke.

 

1 Fur of the martin. 2 Polecat’s skin fur.

3 .e., the foundation of it. 4 Puce, which is explained as /7ea-coloured.

5 A coarse material, 6 Amice, covering for the head and shoulders,
7 Turning down of material, hem or edging. 8 Dark red colour.

9 Trimmings or facings, 10 Jackets.

11 Ruffs for the neck. 12 Tache, a clasp. 13 Pins, 14 Polecat,

15 Lamb, 16 Doublet, close-fitting vest.
Witchcraft.

Divine
service.

236 THE COURT LEET.

Shreves and Baylifies Wieves.—Clothe gownes of crymsen in grayne, some
lyned, with gray amys, and some w' silke for the somer, w' purfulls and gardes of

velvett and cuffes of velvett.
Other clothe gownes purfelyd w' velvett and lyned w' wosted: kyrtills of

chamlett wested and suche lyke wt weltes of velvett on them, Partlettes of
velvett wt buttons and clapsis of gold enamiled and partlettes of lawne, Gyrdells
of silver and gilte called harnes gyrdells and other goldsmythes worke enamyled,
tache hankes! of sylver and gold enamyled, greate pynnes of sylver, purses of
velvett and other silke. Chaynes, brastlettes, and ringes of gold of dyvers
waightes, some of more and some of less waight.

Thomas Beckingham, late of the towne of Suthampton, alderman, for truthe
declarethe that all thinges before said in these thre severall descriptions before
going towching the auncient apparrell of the maior, shreve, and bayliffes and there
wifes, and every of them, is of a truthe, and have byn tyme out of mynde used
to be by them woren, for that he is of the age of lxv yeres, or thereabouts, and
hathe byn a dweller and trader to the said towne of Suthampton by the space of
xlv yeres, and hymselfe hath been maior and borne all the offices forsaid, and by
reason therof he and his wief hathe worne the same.

The names of the jurors immediately follow.

Under the next year (1577) several presentments were made of
infringement of the statute of apparel, with the particulars of each
offence, e.g., Walter Earl wears guards of velvet on his hose; John
Delisle’s wife has a petticoat guarded with velvet; Martin Howes a
gown of Norwich worsted with a broad ‘ byllyment’ lace of silk, and
his wife a hat of taffety lined with velyet. Other wives erred in a
similar way; John Mills’s wife had a cap of velvet and guards in her
gown, &c.

During the sitting of the court in 1579 a complaint of witchcraft
was made against a certain Widow Walker, whereupon the leet jury
prescribed the following test :—

‘We dessire y’ worships to examine hir before you, and to permyt five or six
honest matrons to se hir strippidd to thend to se wheather she have eny bludie
marke on hir bodie w‘" is a comon token to know all witches by, and so either

to stop the mouthes of the people or els to proceade farder at y’ worships
pleasure.’

Attendance at divine service was noticed by the court leet. Under
1580, ‘we present that touching divine service we cannot find any
that any ways do offend, Stephen Barton’s mother and Martin Bowes’s
wife only excepted, which often we have presented.? Eleven years
later (1591) the carelessness of many in this respect was presented who
‘all the wike longe cometh not to the churche and especially on the
Saboth daye.? The churchwardens are required to search all ale-
houses, &c., ‘on the Saboath dayes.’

In 1600 and several following years all was found well touching
divine service, as likewise concerning treasons, murders, felonies.

 

1 Clasp handles,
THE TOWN COURT. 237

 

The law of fencing between neighbour and neighbour we find per- Fencing.
petually laid down in the books. The local custom was for the south
to fence the north and the east the west, and toward the highway every
one was required to make his own fence.

In 1587 the places of punishment are presented as out of repair Pillory.
contrary to the statute, viz., the pillory, the stocks above Bar, and those
in East Street. About this period every householder was to have his
club ready in his house against a frav.

In 1594 the town was suffering under a plethora of ‘inmates and Over-

under-tenants, as well strangers as others, which still increaseth, by eS
which the town is not only impoverished greatly, but also in great
danger of infection, hurt by fire, and such like inconveniences.” A
similar complaint was made in 1603 against greedy landlords, who, to
the great destruction of the town, had admitted too many under-tenants.
They were now warned only to admit substantial lodgers who could
pay their town and parish charges, otherwise the Jandlords would have
to pay. A few years later landlords were ordered to put in pledges for
their tenants (1611, 1618, &c.)

The foregoing are in themselves but meagre extracts from these
interesting books. It must be borne in mind, however, that the court
leet records have been freely used in all parts of the present work.

The court Jeet has been for many years practically obsolete, but Court Leet
might be revived. Its power was exercised in 1802 against certain tae
cnccondinnenls on the manorial property of the Corporatiia in the
waste mud-lands to the north of Chapel Mill, made by persons under
the authority of the hishop’s steward. Notices were served on the
persons so building and encroaching, and on May 11 they were granted
leases under the Corporation.

Again in 1819 some action was taken as to the north-eastern
boundary of the county of the town.

In 1846 it was suggested by the late town-clerk that a perambulation
of the liberties over their widest possible extent should be held, with a
view to settling the question about the boundaries through an action
for trespass. The circuit never came off.

The Town Court.

The common court of the town, as it was usually called, a civil
court of pleas of ancient date (charters 4o Hen. III. 1256, 2 Hen. IV.
1401), was ordered by charter of 1 Edward IV. (1461) to be held in
the Guildhall (Guihalda) before the mayor and bailiffs, on the Tuesday
in each week on personal pleas, and on pleas of lands and tenements on
the Tuesday once in a fortnight.

Several town court books are extant, the earliest bearing date
Present
courts.

339 COUNTY COURT AND QUARTER-SESSIONS,

 

22 Ed. IV., 1482; but Liber Niger contains some more ancient records
of the court.

Before the passing of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1835, the
common court of the town was held on the Tuesday in every week
for the first three weeks after the election of cach new mayor, and on

every alternate Tuesday afterwards.

County Court.

When in 25 Henry VI. (1447) the town and liberties became erected
into a county separate and distinct for ever from the county of South-
ampton or Hampshire, the grant of a sheriff and his court were
naturally involved. The county or sheriff’s court was ordered to be
held every year from month to month on a Monday, and all business
which might lawfully be brought before county courts was to be trans-
acted in it.

The court here fel] into abeyance with the general decline of busi-
ness in county courts. It had no relation to the modern county court.
This is held, under the modern Acts, at the courthouse in Castle
Square ; the quarter and petty sessions for the borough and the petty
sessions for the county being held in the Guildhall, the ancient place of
justice.

Court of Quarter-Sessions.

The form of the justiciary court of the town has varied at different
times. Under the ordinances of the Guild Merchant (Ord. 32) there
were to be elected by the whole community twelve discreets, who, with
the two bailiffs, were empowered to execute the king’s commands, to
keep the peace, protect the franchise, and maintain right between man
and man. By charter 2 Henry IV. (1401) power was given to elect out
of their own body four aldermen, three or two of whom, together with the
mayor, and with four, three, or two.of the more honest and discreet per-
sons of the community, to be chosen yearly by the mayor and community,
should exercise the office and authority of justices of the peace in as
full and ample manner as the justices of the county hitherto, but were
not to proceed in felonies without a special commission.

The charter 1 Ed. IV. (1461) ordered that a person skilled in the
law,! to be chosen the Friday before St. Matthew’s Day, should be added

to the court of justices, which was otherwise composed of the mayor,

 

1 Master Harvey seems to have been standing counsel to the town from
about 1469 to 1471. In 1478 Watkin Ford appears to have been the same.
From about 1493 to 1513 Master William Frost was the ‘lerned counsell of
the town,’ and received for his annual fee twenty shillings. In 1528 Master
Wintershull held the position, (Steward’s Books.)
THE COURT OF ORPHANS. 2309

 

four aldermen, and four other burgesses of the more honest and discreet
persons—the prudent, approved, proli homines or prodeshommes, here
and above, and so constantly, recognised as a distinct and well-known
class. The charter of 1640 made the mayor, the Bishop of Winchester,
the recorder, and ex-mayor, together with five aldermen and two of the
more discreet burgesses to be the court, the mayor and recorder being
always of the quorum ; but previously to the Act of 1835 it was not the
practice for the bishop or for the burgess-justices to attend. The court
had cognisance of all offences triable at county quarter-sessions, and
also of capital felonies, but seldom exercised jurisdiction in these latter,
removing them where possible to the assizes of the county of Hants, or
in case of such removal being barred, whether by the prisoner or the
prosecutor, petition was sent to the Home Office or to the judges of
the Western Circuit for a commission of assize made out for the
county of the town.

A very large number of the sessions books, rolls, and papers are
extant from about the year 1588.

Court of Orphans.

The charter of 16 Charles I. gave power to the mayor, recorder,
aldermen, bailiffs, and sheriff, to hold a court of orphans for the town
and county, with authority over their persons and goods, as in the case
of the Lord Mayorand aldermen in the city of London. The court had
become obsolete by the middle of the last century.

Though granted apparently for the first time by the above charter, Idea
the principle on which the court rested had been anciently recognised, 7G")
and belonged to the very idea and nature of a guild. In 1562 silver plate
belonging to children under age was delivered to the mayor and burgesses
to hold in their behalf. John Staveley, by his will in the same year,
among other bequests, gave a piece of plate to the town, beseeching ‘ the
maior and his brethren to be as fathers’ to his children!

Court of Admiralty.

The admiralty jurisdiction, with the court incident thereto, was
granted by charters® of Henry VI., in which power was given to the
mayor to exercise all the functions cf admiral of England within the
town and port of Southampton, the interference by the admiral of
England within those limits being prohibited. The charter of 16 Chas. I.
1640, confirming and revising previous grants, enjoined that the court

 

1 Lib. Nig., fol. 99; Boke of Remembrances, fol. 93.

* See charters 23 Hen. VI. 1445, 30 Hen, VI. 1451, also 1 Ed, IV. 1461,
See above under ‘ Admiralty Jurisdiction,’
240 THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY.

 

should be held in the Guildhall or other place within the liberties—it
was frequently held ‘ uppon the Watergate’—as often as need should
require, and should be composed of the mayor, recorder, and four
aldermen, or any three of them, the mayor or recorder being one, calling
to their aid when necessary a civil lawyer for their better information.
Cognisance was given of all pleas and plaints personal which belonged
to the Admiralty, and of all actions of contract if the parties or their
goods were attached within the liberties, with the same power of execu-
tion as that possessed by the admiralty court of England. Authority,
of course, was given to choose all officers of the court, such as regis-
trars, notaries, attorneys, scribes, proctors, marshals, servants, &c. An
appeal was allowed to the Lord High Admiral, who was by himself or
by his deputy permitted to hold court within the town or its precincts,
and to perform all necessary functions of the admiralty, but only, as it
seems, on appeal. There appears, however, to have been anciently
some acknowledgment due from the town to the superior court ;! thus
under 1526-27 occurs an entry,” ‘ Paid to Mr. Odell, my lorde admyralles
deputie, for the allowaunce of the admyraltie of our towne vnder his
brodd seale, xxvj* viij*?

The first in the regular series of admiralty records now existing
bears date 14th July 1493 (8 Hen. VII.), when courts were held (z.)
at Keyhaven, in the accustomed place on the sea-shore, before Thomas
Dymock, mayor and admiral of the port, John Walssh, burgess,
George Cockys, steward of the town, W. Erneley, town and admiralty
clerk, and others. By the oath of the jury all was reported well, and
two men of Keyhaven were sworn to administer and execute in the
mayor’s name all duties belonging to the admiralty there. (2.) At
Lepe, on July 15. The jury was composed of men representing Hythe,
Lepe, Pennehall (Pennington ?), Ower, Exbury, Hardley, and Cadlands.
Two persons were sworn, as above, to carry out the mayor’s duties in
his behalf. The jury presented that a monk and certain servants of
the Abbot of Beaulieu had, contrary to the king’s peace, rescued a
Portuguese bark which had been seized in behalf of the mayor. Minor
presentments followed. (3.) At Hamul-on-the-Rice (Hamble), on
September 24, in the accustomed place on the sea-shore, the jury
representing Hamullryse (Hamble), Shotshale (Satchell), Bussilden
(Bursledon), and Letley (Netley). Among other matters, it was pre-
sented that ‘when Barlyes bott of the Isle of Wyght was drownyd
therein was drowned a prest’ and certain others, who were buried at

 

1 A gallon of wine or other gratuity was also occasionally presented to my
Lord Admiral. (See Steward’s Book, 1493.)
2 MS. Temp. Thome Overey sub data.
THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY. 241

 

Netley, and that the Abbot had retained £3, 6s. 8d. which the priest
had in his purse. Other presentments followed about the removal
of timber, keeping the channels clear, &c.

The number of jurors at these courts varied very greatly. At a
court at Hamull Rice (Hamble), on 27th April 1508 (23 Hen. VIL),
the jury consisted of no Jess than thirty-six persons, two from Itchen,
three from Letley, seven from Hamull Rice, three from Botley, two
from Warisaysshe (Warsash), eight from Shotshame (Satchell), eleven
from Brisselden (Bursledon), which may represent the comparative
importance of those places at the time.

From the early part of the seventeenth century the courts seem to have
been held at irregular periods. In 1615 the court leet presented that no
admiralty sessions had been held since the last mayoralty of Mr. Wallop
(1610), and urged that a court should be summoned, ‘lest time, the
devourer of all things,’ and the omittance of the priviledge’ caused its
loss. Presentments similar in character were made in 1629, 1630,
1705, 1706, 1721, and no doubt in other years. In 1707 and 1708
courts were apparently held at Lymington, the Southampton Corpora-
tion asking leave to erect their booth on Lymington quay, and in the
latter year to carry their oar erect through the borough.? On September
10, 1756, the admiralty circuit, which had been then for a Jong time
intermitted, was ordered to ‘be gone’ by the Corporation, and the
recorder was to be paid a ‘handsome gratuity if he attend.’ His
attendance having been promised, the mayor was desired to entertain
him and the aldermen at dinner on the first day (September 20), an
allowance of three guineas being voted for the purpose, the same as at
a sessions dinner. Before the meeting of the court, the Corporation of
Lymington objected (September 18) to a booth being set up on their
quay for the purpose without their leave having been first obtained,
which they alleged had been usual. The Corporation of Southampton
replied that they could find no such precedent, but consented to ask
leave; and accordingly erected their booth and marched with their
trumpeter and silver oar through the borough of Lymington. The
records of these courts are the last entered in the books. They were
held: (1.) At Southampton, in the Guildhall, on Monday, September 20,
1756 (30 Geo. IT.), before George West, Esq., mayor, W. Eyre, Esq.,
recorder, John Godfrey, town-clerk and registrar of the court, and five
proctors, the water-bailiff, and four marshals, The sand-walkers, who

 

1 This language and sentiment, though not altogether uncommon, may have
been delivered by a certain N. Fuljambe, possibly deputy town-clerk, who in
another place draws out and signs a list of Sir Thomas White’s legacies, ‘lest
time, the devourer of all things, should hinder the remembrance of them.’

2 King’s Lymington, p. 106,

Qa
242 THE COURT OF ADMIRALTY.

 

were but six in number, were not present, but were ordered to attend
at Lepe. The jurors, fifteen in all, represented Southampton, Mill-
brook, Redbridge, Totton, Eling, Marchwood, Dibden, Hythe, Itchen.
The boundaries of the admiralty jurisdiction were presented as extend-
ing ‘from the bridges of Eling and Redbridge down the Southampton
Water, and from Botley Bridge down Hamble river into the South-
ampton Water, thence down to Calshott Castle, and from thence half-
seas over to the Isle of Wight from the Iron Hand, which was time
out of mind set up at Keyhaven, and down the creek there to Hurst,
and thence to Langston Point near Portsmouth, including all the waters,
creeks, shores, and maritime places within Hurst and Langston as far
up as the first bridges.? Various presentments were made, and fines
levied on two sand-walkers for fishing contrary to their duties and the
Act of Parliament in that case made. It was desired, also, to put in
force the statutes against unlawful nets. The right of fishing and of
licensing fishermen was presented as belonging to the Corporation.
(2.) At Lymington, on September 21, the jurors, twenty in number,
representing Lymington, Woodside, Keyhaven, Milford, Boldre, Pen-
nington. (3.) At Lepe, on September 22, the jurors, who numbered
twenty-two, were from Ashlet, Ower, Hardley, Lepe, Tilbury, Exbury,
Stanswood, Stone, Holbury, Hythe. (4.) At Hamble, on Thursday,
September 23, the jurors, eighteen in number, being from Hamble,
Weston, Netley, Bursledon, Helhead, Swanwick, Warsash, and Brunage.
The presentments at the various courts were all of the same character.

It had been intended to hold an admiralty circuit in 1798, before
which year no court had been held for some time, and it was feared
the omission might prove injurious to the rights of the Corporation.
However the town resources were exhausted by various contributions on
national emergencies, subscriptions for the troops and fleet, relieving the
families of the killed, and other enlarged benefactions; it was there-
fore resolved that—

‘The intended and necessary circuit through the said admiralty jurisdiction
be further suspended until the Corporation purse shall be so replenished as to
admit of so expensive a mode of asserting so valuable a prerogative,’

The opportunity never seems to have occurred, and the last vestige
of the old jurisdiction was the continued appointment of sand-walkers.
All rights of admiralty were finally extinguished by the Municipal
Corporation Act, 1835.

Pie-Powtder Court.

A court of pie-powder with the usual objects and powers was held
from ancient time during the fairs of the town. It was regulated
PAVILION COURT (WINCHESTER). 243

 

by charter! 1 Ed. IV. (1461), and confirmed by that of 16 Chas. I
(1640).
Pavilion Court (Winchester).

This court, though not belonging to the town of Southampton, but St. _Giles's
to the Bishop of AN invehester, and held as a pie-powder court of special **
authority on St. Giles’s Hill, Winchester, during the celebrated St.
Giles’s Fair, has yet left so many traces on the town books that it
should be here mentioned. The fair itself, which originated in a grant
of William the Conqueror to Bishop Walkelin, lasted at first one day.
This was extended by William Rufus to three days, by Henry I. to
eight, by Stephen to fourteen, and by Henry III. to sixteen days.
During the continuance of the fair no business could be done in the
city, or in Southampton, or within seven leagues of the hill all round ;
and collectors were appointed at Southampton and on the roads leading
to the city to gather the appointed duties on merchandise brought to
the fair. These profits went to the See of Winchester, though various
foundations also enjoyed certain benefits from them.

Controversies with Southampton arising from the fair were not
infrequent. In 1250 the bailiffs and burgesses had agreed with Adomar
(Ethelmar), elect of Winchester, concerning restrictions of their com-
merce during the fair ;? but in 1260 the bailiffs complained that they
had been unlawfully hindered in their tronage and pesage on pretence
of the fair by Gerard le Grue, afterwards (1267) sheriff of Hants, but
then seneschal of the bishop. They took nothing by their suit.2 Five
years later (1265) they proceeded against the bishop, John de Exon,
for stopping their trafhe during the fair, on the ground that they had
charter rights for trading at all times. In the end, the monopoly of
the fair was affirmed.

The pavilion court of the fair, so called for being held in a tent, Court.
was presided over by certain Jjusticiars, called judges of the pavilion,
who were authorised by letters patent, probably confirmatory, of Richard
II. and Edward IV., to have cognisance of pleas and other matters
during the fair, and to receive and keep for the same period the keys,
and assume the custody, of the city. The mayor delivered up his powers
accordingly for the time being on the eve of each St. Giles’s Day.

It appears that a fine was paid by the town of Southampton to the
pavilion court every year.

 

1 The action of pie-powder courts was confined to each fair or market, both
as to duration and limits, by statute 17 Ed, IV. cap. 2. Before that statute
these courts had assumed a more extensive jurisdiction,

2 Chart. 39 Hen. III. m. 5; also Reg. Pontiss., ff. 201, 202,

3 Abbrev, Plac., 44 Hen. III. * Ibid., 49 Hen, III,
Fines,

244 PAVILION COURT (WINCHESTER).

 

Under 1457, ‘Item to my lord Byschop [Waynflete] of Wynchester,

for the fyne of the pavylon delyverd to Water Clerke, xx*”
Under 1478 the fine for the pavilion at St. Giles’s Fair was 26s. 8d.

Under 1488—

For the paulyn : also payd to Christopher Ambros[e] the xxvj day of August
for a potte of gryn gynger weyng viii’ the whyche was presentyd to my lord? of
Wenchester . . . viij*

Allso for a potte of sowkett weyng ix" presentyd to the sayde lord . . . iiij* vj+

Allso for ij pottes to put y* genger and sowkett yn, xij*

Allso payd to Mr. Vensent for vj lovys off soaker weyng xxij [at 54d.], x* jt

Allso payd for pakthede for to torse ye sayd gere, ob. [44.]

The hire of five horses for the mayor at delivering the present was
2od., and a man was paid 8d. for carrying it.

Allso payd to ye kepar of the park of Waltam for the convaying off Mr.
Mayor and his felyshepp frydyng (sic) to Waltam, for the brege was broke in y*
lane, iiij*

Also paid to my lord’s porter, 12%; for horse meat at Waltham, 6¢; for
beer for the men, 5“; and to the passengers [ferrymen] of the Itchen, 4¢

Sept. 2, to Christopher Ambrose and two others riding to Waltham to my
lord for pawlyn, 8% and 12%

Sept. 3, paid for the costs of Mr. Customar Christopher Ambrose, Mr.
Vensent, and Thomas Demok w' other burges the nomer [number] of xiij horse
for to ryde to Wenchester to mete wt my lord for to mak our fyne for y*
pavlyn, for meet and drynk, ij® iiij

Allso pay[d] ye daye aforesayd for owr fyne of the paulyn, xxvj* viij*

Under 1493—

Costes and expenses of the Powlyn tyme: Ze Paulyn, xij pounde of comfettes
gyffe to my lord? of Wynchestre, price the pounde viij* (packed in two boxes),
x poundes and iij quarters of sokatte at vj* the pounde, with six pots for the same.

Then came green ginger and pots, sugar, thirty-three pounds of
‘caprys’ and a barrel for them, and a barrel of muscadel.

To the yemen of my Lord of Wynchester in reward, xx? ; payd to the clerkes
and queresters of my Lord’s chapelle in gifte, xx¢ Item gyff to the porter there,
xij

Various other expenses attending upon their journey and the car-
riage of these gifts occur. Then further—

Payd to a man that rode to Waltham to knowe when the bysshop wold be at
home, for him and his hors, ix*

Item payd for the beryng in of the barrell of wyne before my lord and bryng-
yng home of the panyers, iij*

Item payd for ij skynnys of whyte ledder to bynd the pottes of socate and
grene gynger, vj

Item payd to Robert Wryght for ryding to the Paulyn court, and for hors
hire, xvj*

Item for Mr. Mayer, Mr, Overey, Mr. Dautre, and Maister Countroller rode
to my lorde agayne to knowe the ffyne of the Paulyn, in expenses and hors hyre,
viij® viij*

 

1 Peter Courtenay, 2 Thomas Langton.
THE SEALS, ARMS, COINAGE, AND SIR BEVOIS. 245

 

Item payd for a tun of reade wyne gyvyn to my said lord for a ffyne of the
Paulyn, iiij®

Nota, and yet in the bysshoppes bookes is set but xl* because it shalbe
no precedente in tyme to come.

That is to say, the fine, for some reason or other, was much higher
than usual, and its being repeated at that figure in future years was
guarded against in this fashion.

Under 1501 the bishop received for the Paulyn, for three years
ending Michaelmas 1500, two butts of malvesey, price #4, 138. 4d. the
butt, the total being #9, 6s. 8d., and the fine therefore per year about
£3, 28. 23d.

But the fair and the court were no longer in their medieval glory.

SecTion X.—Zhe Seals, Arms, Coinage, and Sir Bevots.

1. There have been several official seals of the town, most of which
bear the characteristic one-masted ship, the earlier having a steerage Seals.
oar, a rudder appearing towards the middle of the fourteenth century ;
these seals generally show a star and crescent on the mainsail of the
vessel or elsewhere. A new obverse to the latest town seal was pre-
sented, as acknowledged August 23, 1587, by Richard Etuer, late of
Hampton, fishmonger of London. It bears a magnificent three-masted
ship in full sail, with the newly given town arms on the mainsail ; the
older obverse was a one-masted vessel, no ship in England having had
more than one mast till about 1514; on the forecastle were two men
blowing with trumpets. The legend on the newer obverse is ‘ Sigillum
commune villz Southamtonie.’ The original reverse, still in use,
bears in a central canopied niche a figure of the Virgin and Child;
within a niche on either side is a figure in adoring attitude ; the legend
is ‘Mater Virgo Dei tu miserere nobis.’? Casts of these and of various
other official seals are to be seen in the Hartley Museum,

2. The arms of the town were granted by patent of August 4

(17 Eliz.), 15753 they are thus described :—‘ Per fesse, argent and gules, Arms,
three roses counterchanged of the field; with crest and supporters,
namely, upon the helme on a wreath, silver and gules, on a mount vert,
a castell of gold; out of the castell, a quene in her imperial majestie,
holding in the right hand the sword of justice, in the left the balance
of equitie, mantelled, gules; dobled silver.’ The supporters: out of
two ships, proper, upon the sea, standing in the fore part of the ships,
two lions rampant, gold. The patent states that the town had borne
arms since its incorporation by Henry VI.

3. The regalia of the town require engraving for their explanation
even more than the seals. The more ancient maces are exhibited in the Regalia.
Coinage,

246 THE SEALS, ARMS, COINAGE, AND SIR BEVOIS.

 

Hartley Museum. The making of one of them is detailed in the
Steward’s Book of 1482-83. The silver oar of the admiralty, a
cherished badge, has been mentioned elsewhere.

4. Among the borough and tradesmen’s money tokens issued in the
latter half of the seventeenth and in the eighteenth centuries, the fol-
lowing may be noted :—Halfpenny size, ‘ Cornelius Macham, his half-
penny ;” on the other side, ‘in Southampton 1667,’ with the grocers’
arms. ‘William Jolliffe of’ (grocers’ arms) ; on other side, ‘Southampton
1666, W'I.’ ‘ George Freeman at ye white’ (figure of horse in middle);
on other side, ‘in Southampton, 1668, his half-penny.” ‘ Henry Nor-
borne in Southa® his half-penny, 1668 ;? on other side, trade arms and
initials H.N. A. After this the Corporation, by order of November 26,
1669, required all tradesmen to recall their halfpence and farthings by
the Ist January next coming, it being arranged that the mayor should
send for £20 worth of halfpence and farthings to be stamped on one
side with the town arms, and on the other with ‘The Corporation of
Southampton,’ and distribute them to the shopkeepers for the benefit
of the poor of the Corporation. Proclamation was accordingly made
December 3, 1669.1. Halfpence and farthings of the above description
are met with of this and subsequent dates. They were all called in
August 28, 1672, in obedience to a royal proclamation of August 16.2

Late in the next century the following device was adopted :—A
helmed head in profile, underneath ‘S* Bevois, Southampton, half-
penny ;’ on other side, ‘Brewery and Block Manufactory United Com-
pany 1790;’ edge, ‘Payable at the office of W. Taylor, R. V. Moody
and Co” Other issues of this company differ slightly from the above;
among these are the helmed head in profile, ‘S* Bevois, Southampton ;’
on the reverse, a rose and crown ona shield, ‘ Promissory halfpenny
1791;’ edge, ‘Payable’ (as before). On another the helmed head,
*S* Bevois, Southampton, halfpenny;’ other side, ‘Success to the
Brewery and Block Manufactory 1791 ;’ edge, ‘ Payable’ (as before).
A head in profile without a helmet, ‘S* Bevois, Southampton,’ as above.
They issued also farthings with the same devices and legends, date 1790.
Of the farthing size of older date are ‘ Henry Miller in’ (grocers’ arms) ;
other side, ‘Southampton 1664; in centre, ‘H™M.’ ‘ Jacob Ward of?
(other side) ‘Southampton ;’ in the middle,‘ W. ‘ Richard Cornelius;’
in middle, ‘R.C. ;’ on other side, ‘in Southampton 1660 ;” in middle a
tun. Of mite size, “William Jollife of’ (grocers’ arms) ‘ Southampton ;’
in centre ‘W.I.’? No date.

5. “I should be thought guilty of an unpardonable omission if I

 

1 Journal, November 26, 1669; May 6, 1670, &c.
? Journal, August 28 and September 13.
THE SEALS, ARMS, COINAGE, AND SIR BEVOIS. 247

 

“should pass over our champion Bevis or Bevois without some notice,

though, I confess, I know very little of him.

“Mr. Camden, speaking of the Earls of Southampton, says that
about the coming in of the Normans one Bogo or Beavoyse (Beavo- Sir Bevois
tius), a Saxon, had this title, who, at the battle of Cardiff in Wales, pe
engaged the Normans. ... Mr. Speed also calls him Bogo, and
gives him arms in the map of Hampshire; but neither he nor Mr.
Camden quote any authority for the existence of such aman. The
story told of him here is, that he fought with a giant named Ascapart
on the sea-shore near the town, and that Ascapart struck at him with
“his club, but missing his blow, the club stuck fast in the mud, and
“that while he was pulling to get it out, Bevis despatched him with
“his sword.” But according to the metrical romance the giant, van-
quished in the fight, becomes Sir Bevois’s treacherous esquire.

ce

if9

“

ce

“

€

n

c

na

¢

nq

 

1 The metrical romance of Sir Bevois of Hampton appears to be of French
origin, and to have taken shape under the minstrels of the Crusades, or soon after
that period. It was first printed in Venice in Italian so early as 1489; it also
appeared early in French, and was first printed in England by Pynson in quarto—
‘ Sir Beuys of Southampton: The son of Guy Erle of Southampton’—no date,
Many subsequent editions have appeared, but the versions are not identical,
Extracts are given by Ellis; the romance was also printed by the Maitland Club
in 1838.

 
Wine,

( 248 )

CHAPTER V.
THE TRADE OF THE TOWN.
Section ].—General.

THE prosperity of the port commenced with the Norman Conquest,
and probably continued unabated till the loss of the French possessions
in 1451-53. At the opening of this period (see p. 26) we find a pre-
ponderance of Normans settled in the town, and the constant transit
between this port and Normandy must have tended to the wealth and
importance of the place.

In the account of fifteenths rendered by William de Wrotham,
Archdeacon of Taunton, for the fifteen months commencing July 20,
1204, and ending November 30, 1205, issuing from thirty-five ports,
and amounting in the whole to #4958, 7s. 34d., the fifteenths of
merchants at the port of London amounted to £836, 12s. 1od.,
Boston, £780, 15s. 3d., Southampton, £712, 3s. 7d.

The wine trade was settled here early. With the acquisition of the
French provinces through the marriage of Henry II. (May 1152) with
Eleanor of Poitou, daughter of William, Duke of Aquitaine, a con-
siderable traffic was commenced with Bordeaux, in which this port
shared very largely. The early Close Rolls? abound in writs to the
bailiffs concerning the wine trade generally, or the king’s wines,
whether prisage or otherwise, or those of the wealthy folk whose
concerns must have kept the port alive. Wine was the principal
import ; but beer, if we may put it in the same company, was at least
an occasional export. Thus in June 1225 (9 Hen. III.) the bailiffs
were directed to permit the exportation of beer in the case of a
merchant of Flanders, notwithstanding a previous order against the
exportation of grain or other victual to foreign parts. Merchants and
wealthy men frequently treated directly with royalty as to their dues
and permissions ; hence many of the surviving writs.

Coeval with this early period are many of the vaults and cellars in

 

1 Madox, Excheq,, i. 772.
2 A mass of these notices from the printed Close Rolls may be seen in
Woodward and Wilks’s History of Hampshire, pp. 174-204.
TRADE OF THE TOWN. 249

 

the older parts of the town. In this connection may be mentioned old
the ancient groined apartment of somewhat later date, now used as a ee
bonded cellar, on the north side of Simnel Street, exactly opposite the
mouth of Pepper Alley. This is the most ancient quarter of the town,

and it is possible that in the substructures of the houses there may
exist many remains yet undescribed.

The wool trade, which makes its first impress on the statute book Wool.
in the reign of Edward I., obtains some of its earliest notices in South-
ampton from arrangements inade for just weight. The custody of the
tron, or weighing beam, was a long time in the family of the Earl of
Warwick; and from a suit in 1275, and judgment the following year,
it appears that a certain tenement in the town belonging to the Earl
was held by service of weighing all goods in Southampton; Stephen le
Neyre, with his brothers and sisters, being in occupation at that time,
as their ancestors had been before them, presumably with the charge
of carrying out this duty. In spite of supervision, complaints were
made in 1290 by Spanish merchants to Edward I. of deception in the
auncel weight in our town. By this method of weighing, abolished by
statute in 1351-52, the beam was balanced on the hand ; the merchants
reasonably prayed a safer method.?

In 1299 Nicholas de Barbeflet (see p. 114), burgess of Southampton,
obtained by royal grant the tronage and pesage of wools for export
from Southampton for six years at the yearly rent of forty shillings,’
and in 1302 John Piacle, king’s messenger, received the custody of the
pesage for his long service, and for the tidings he brought the king of
the birth of his son Edward. In 1312 the custody of the sixth and
seventh parts of the pesage was committed to William Mauncel of
Minchin Hampton, and in 1316 a grant of the pesage which had
belonged to Guy de Beauchamp, late Earl of Warwick, who had died
in August 1315, at the annual rent of forty shillings.® Just previously
to this (1314), by some abuse the standard weight intrusted to the
burgesses had got into the hands of aliens, and the authorities of the
Exchequer were commanded to see this righted.®

In 1327 Geoffry Hogheles was made collector of wool customs in
the port of Southampton and along the coast as far as Weymouth ; in
the next year Hugo Sampson was added to the collectorship, John de
Vienne taking his place in the following. Later in the same year
John de Vallibus was appointed. Hogheles held the collectorship in

 

1 Abbrev. Plac., Mich. 3 and 4, and 4 and § Ed, I.
2 Rot. Parl, i. 47 b. 3 Rot. Orig. Abbrev., 28 Ed, I.
# Ibid., 10 Ed, II. 5 Ibid., 6 and 10 Ed, II,

6 Rot, Parl., i. 332.
Venetian

trade.

1378,

250 TRADE OF THE TOWN.

 

1330; in the next year Hogheles and Sampson together, and five years
later (1336) Richard de Moundelard and Laurence de Mees.

The Beauchamp family retained their old office. In 1369 Thomas,
Earl of Warwick, died, seised, among other possessions, of two messuages
in Southampton and the office of pesage there. The same occurred in
1401 with Earl Thomas, son of the last ; so of Earl Richard in 1439,
and of Henry, Duke of Warwick, in June 1445. In October 1485 the
office of ‘ peyser’ was granted, during the minority of Edward, Earl of
Warwick, to Thomas Troys, clerk of the works within the manor and
park of Clarendon, Wilts, under Edward IV. and Henry VII.; the
office of weigher in the parish of St. John being granted during the
same minority to John Skydmore, in succession to Richard Aylesby.
In 1509 Anthony Legh, chief clerk of the kitchen, was made
weigher at the king’s common beam vice the son of John Baptist
Grymoldt

The office of pesage in the town was the more important in the
Middle Ages since by an ordinance of Edward II. in 1320 Southampton
was one of the ports from which alone wool could be shipped, the
others being Weymouth, Boston, Yarmouth, Hull, Lynn, Ipswich, and
Newcastle; while by the ordinance of the staples in 1353, which fixed
the staples for wools, leather, woolfells, and lead at Newcastle, York,
Lincoln, Norwich, Westminster, Canterbury, Chichester, Winchester,
Exeter, and Bristol, to one of which places all such commodities were
to be brought in the first instance to be weighed and sealed by the
mayor of the staple, the port of Southampton was appointed for the
shipping and weighing a second time of all that came from Win-
chester.

The earliest notice of the Venetian trade is connected with an
affray between the patrons, merchants, masters, and mariners of five
Venetian galleys and the town’s people. Blood was shed and pro-
perty destroyed, the Venetians rendering themselves liable for felony and
homicide. As, however, it was far from politic to press the quarrel
with these wealth-bearing strangers, the mayor and community, by
desire of Edward II., proclaimed an immunity in April 1323, in con-
sideration of a certain money compensation.”

“This port received great advantages from the following Act of
“ Parliament,” which gave facilities to Genoese and Venetian mer-
chants :-—

** ¢ Also it is ordained and agreed that all merchants of Genoa, Venice, Cata-
“¢lonia, Arragon, and of other kingdoms, lands, and countries lying westward,

 

1 See Inquis, Post-Mortem under dates; Rot. Parl, vi. 366; Materials
for History of Henry VII., and Brewer’s Letters (Rolls Series).
? Cal. State Papers (Venetian).
TRADE OF THE TOWN. 251

 

“ € being at peace with our Lord the King, who will bring to Hampton, or any
‘ other place within the realm, carracks, ships, gallies, or any other vessels,
‘laden or unladen, may freely sell their merchandise there to whom they
‘please, in the manner before mentioned, and may there reload their said
‘vessels with wool, hides, woolfells, lead, tin, and other staple commodities,
“and may freely carry them to their own countries westward, paying at the
‘ port where they load all manner of customs, subsidies, and other duties of
“¢ Calais, in the same manner as they would pay if they carried the same goods
to the staple at Calais, provided they give sufficient security that they will
carry them from thence westward, and not to any other place eastward than
to the staple at Calais, if haply they have a mind to go thither, on pain of
“¢ the forfeiture appointed aforetime.’ 1

ce

cos
coe

eee

“ At that time the Genoese and Venetians carried on all the Levant
trade, and when they were excused from going up the Channel to
Calais, which shortened their voyage, they all came to Southampton,
which made this town the centre of all the Levant trade of the king-
“dom. And so it continued to be till the exportation of wool was
“ prohibited in Henry VIII.’s time, which put a stop to the Levanters,
“as wool was the commodity they chiefly wanted.2

“ However, the Journals take notice of some few Venetian ships
“ being here after this time; as in 4 and 5 Phil. and Mary (1557-58)
“and 11 Elizabeth (1569)—‘ John Crooke, mayor, a Venetian ship
“« here, £50.

“ The above circumstance is the reason that the ships of Venice and
“ Genoa are mentioned in the charters.” From the date of the above
encouragement for some hundred and fifty years the ships came almost
with the constancy of the returning seasons, the regularity of their
visits being broken before the middle of the sixteenth century.

The number of galleys commissioned each season by the Doge was
from three to five. The decree of the senate was usually in much the
same terms, specifying the course of the voyage, the duration of stay at
each place, the number, duties, and pay of the officers? and men. The
ships were generally here about sixty days, their coming being awaited
with the greatest interest (see below, last chapter). The detention of
the galleys on one pretext or other by order of our kings was often
a source of annoyance and loss, and occasionally gave rise to corre-
spondence.

Merchant vessels here, as in other ports, were constantly taken up

ce

ce

a4

 

1 2 Rich, II, stat. 1, cap. 3 (1378). Dr. Speed has this Act, which is
printed in Statutes of the Realm, i, 8. The Act was confirmed 1 Hen, IV,
(1399) ; see Rot. Parl, iti, 429.

2 Dr. Speed probably refers to Acts 22 Hen, VIII. (1530-31), cap, 1, and
37 Hen. VIII. (1545), cap. 15.

3 In 1439 a decree of the senate permitted the captain of the Flanders
galleys to go ashore every day to hear mass, whether at Sandwich or South-
ampton.
Hindrances
from ship-
ping deten-
tions,

Hindrances
from war.

252 TRADE OF THE TOWN.

 

on all kinds of service, the bailiffs being directed to furnish the vessels.
Then at one time they are ordered to arrest all ships in port, together
with the foreign merchants ; at another, to release some and detain the
rest. Occasionally, in their zeal to carry out the orders of the crown,
they made mistakes and laid hands on the wrong men or ships. In
1217 they had to release some citizens of Dublin; and in the same
year were attached to answer for the seizure of a Gascon ship laden
with 140 tuns of the king’s wine and with cloth belonging to the
queen’s wardrobe. Damages were laid at £700, but the bailiffs plead-
ing error, got off with a fine of sixty marks of silver to Queen Eleanor.’

Again, in connection with a late proclamation against suffering
men or horses to leave the port, the ‘mayor’ and men of Southampton
were subjected to an inquiry in the same year (1 Hen, III. 1217) about
some horses detained by them, belonging, as it now appeared, to Sir
Richard Scarcaville, custos of the honour of Windsor. It seems from
their Jetter to Peter des Roches, Bishop of Winchester, and Hubert de
Burgh, justiciar, that on the day when Louis of France opened his
sieze of Winchester (June 1216, 18 John), a certain clerk came to the
port with nine horses and two servants, representing himself as ‘ the
man of the Lord Fulk de Breauté,?? to whom also the horses were said
to belong ; as, however, the clerk produced no royal license for ship-
ment, or proof of ownership of the horses, they were detained till he
should put himself right. Simon de St. Lawrence kept one horse
valued at five marks; Richard de Leicester another valued at a hun-
dred shillings ; Thomas de Bulehuse (now dead) another worth five marks;
Mikarly de Ambly one worth twenty shillings ; Roger de Tonellario one
worth ten shillings; Hosbert Petithome kept one, and three the clerk
took with him, The sequel does not appear, but the story brings before
us some old burgesses—of whom elsewhere—and for whom a merciful
consideration was here asked.®

The warlike peparations of our monarchs acted as a frequent hin-
drance to trade. Thus, in view of the expedition to France (1225), the
bailiffs were ordered to arrest all the large ships in port, and send them
to Portsmouth for service, but to permit fishing vessels* of or below

 

1 Abbrev. Plac., Innocents’ Day, 2 Hen, III.

2 Fulk or Falkes de Breauté was at this time, with Savaric de Mauleon, in
command of the king’s southern army (see Dudg. Bar., i. 743, &c. ; Stubbs, ii.
II, 12, &c.)

' 3 Letters, time of Hen. III. (Rolls Series).

* In 1223, in consequence of an order for arresting and sending ships to
Portsmouth, the bailiffs had seized even fishing-boats, and had got into trouble
with some owners from Romsey, whose boats had been impressed, A writ was
obtained for delivering the boats on condition of their being ready when called
upon to do the king service.
TRADE OF THE TOWN. 253

 

twelve oars to go their way. In 1304 Edward I. granted to Philip the
Fair, king of France, for his expedition against the Flemings, twenty
ships, to be picked out from the best and largest of those of Southamp-
ton and the other southern ports, each ship to be manned with at least
forty stout men and well found.

In 1306 (35 Ed. I.) all exports having been forbidden, the bur-
gesses and good men of Southampton petitioned successfully that, as
they lived by their ships and merchandise, they might be exempted and
suffered to go with their ships to Gascony, and not elsewhere, for wines,
on such security as the king and council might require.

Early in this century we read of serious piracies on the Southampton trom
wine trade, and of the reprisals and protests made in consequence; the P™*%
trade from Bordeaux and Bayonne had suffered heavily.

A little later (1336, 10 Ed. III.) the collectors of customs were
ordered to permit two ships of Roger Norman and Thomas de Bynedon
to take a freight of thirty sarplars of wool to Gascony, notwithstanding
that the king had ordered all ships and mariners to be impressed, and
had forbidden any to go to those parts, except in large fleets, on account
of the ‘aliens’ hovering about. In the next year (1337) similar per-
mission was given to merchants of the Society of the Alberti of Florence
to ship into Gascony seventy sacks of wool. 2

In 1345 a return of all ships which served the king in the French General

war gives another relative view of the importance of Southampton. seins
The whole fleet was divided into the north and the south. The south
fleet was gathered from fifty ports or maritime towns from the mouth
of the Thames along the south and west coasts, including Wales. The
total number of ships in this fleet was 493, the mariners were 9030.
Of these, 25 were king’s ships manned by 409 mariners; London sent
25 ships and 662 mariners; Southampton 21 ships and 576 mariners.
Some of the results seem surprising to us now; the little village of
Hamble, near Southampton, and of course within its maritime juris-
diction, sent 7 ships and 117 mariners ; Hook, 11 ships and 208 men;
Portsmouth sent but 5 ships and g6 men; while Toway sent no less
than 47 and 770 mariners; Dartmouth, 32 ships; Plymouth, 26;
Bristol, 22; Lymington, 9 ships and 159 mariners; Poole, 4 ships and
94 men; the Isle of Wight, 13 ships and 220 men?

Under 1379 an instance of jealousy is recorded on the part of the Jealousy,
merchants of London. It appears that a rich Genoa merchant had
sought permission of the king to occupy the castle lately built, or rather

 

1 Rot. Parl, i. 193. 2 Abbrev, Rot. Orig., 11 Ed, III.

3 Bree’s Cursory Survey, 336, 342. Bree gives also at length the case of
Sir Nicholas D’Amory’s prize, which was gone into by a Southampton jury under
order of Council, pp. 231, 235.
Conve-
nience for
Norman
traffic

Sale of
ships,

Loans,

254 TRADE OF THE TOWN.

 

rebuilt, at Southampton for the better security of his merchandise,
holding out a promise of bringing untold wealth to the king and
kingdom, while he undertook to make Southampton superior to all
the ports of Western Europe. These great designs so inflamed the
merchants of London that they procured his assassination one evening
near his house.’

The year 1381 seems to have been specially prosperous to South-
ampton from the Venetian trade.?

Tt appears that in 1394 (17 Rich. II.) the merchants of the
western counties—Hants, Wilts, Somerset, Dorset, and Berks—who
found Calais a most inconvenient staple, petitioned that they might
have the privileges conceded to the merchants of Genoa, Venice,
Catalonia, and Arragon, and use Southampton as their port for
Normandy, without carrying their wools to Calais, receiving also
Norman goods at Southampton. However no relief came: ‘ Let
them repair to Calais as is appointed, was the reply.

In 1402 (4 Hen. IV.) it was conceded to the Genoese that their
goods might be unladen at Southampton and conveyed thence to
London by land, conditionally on the merchants showing their goods
and paying all dues before the customers of Southampton, and thus
being released from paying scavage or toll on the ‘showage’ or
opening of imported goods in London.‘

Southampton also was made a centre when, in 1422, William Sopur,
John Foxholes, clerk, and Nicholas Banister of Southampton, were
empowered to sell certain ships for the king’s benefit before the end of
the next Parliament, proclamations of the coming sale being ordered
in London, Bristol, Hull, Lynn, Yarmouth, and Plymouth, that persons
desirous of becoming purchasers might repair at once to Southampton.

In 1436 (14th Feb., 14 Hen. VI.) loans were regulated by order
of council in aid of the expedition into France® under the Duke of
York in the April following. Southampton was put at 200 marks;
possibly 100 was the actual amount of loan, as also in the case of
Winchester.’

 

1 Walsingham, i. 407 ; Stow, sub ann. 1379 and 1380.

2 Walsingham, i. 450. ® Rot, Parl, iii, 322.

4 Ibid., ili, 491, 520. 5 Bree, 273.

6 A few years after we have a curious notice of one of the captives in these
wars. On March 8, 1450 (28 Hen. VI.), John Melton, who had done good service,
but had been made prisoner with the Lord Gaucourt, and had now left two
children in pledge, was permitted to trade from Southampton to France till the
middle of the following May in a balinger called the ‘Thomas of Hampton,’ of
22 tons or under, with ten mariners and one page, in order to complete his
ransom (Wars of English, i. 514).

7 Ord. of Privy Council, iv. 319.
TRADE OF THE TOWN. 255

 

In 1451 alum was brought to our port in large quantities by the Am.
Genoese,!

At this period Southampton was also a great emporium for tin, Tia.
and in 1453 (31 Hen. VI.) the king arrested it all for the public
service. An urgent letter from the king and council (August 14)
addressed to the mayor, Andrew James, and others—John Ewerly,
Thomas Osbern, Symken Edward, Lawrence Moyen—gives them
power to weigh and sell the tin lately arrested in the town by the
king’s command, and to send the produce in all haste to the Treasury,
towards the cost of the army to be sent into Guienne in the approach-
ing September under the Earl of Shrewsbury. Tin that could not be
sold was to be sent to London; and those who had claims on tin sold
were to be referred to the council at Westminster?

In 1454 (32 Hen. VI.) a loan was ordered to be levied in the
various ports to the amount of £1000 for keeping the sea and securing
trade. London was set at £300, Bristol £150, Hampton 100,
Norwich and Yarmouth together #100, the ports occurring in this
order. Of the rest, none was put at more than £503

In the next year (1455) from a petition of the Commons we Jearn ftatian
that Italian merchant strangers had been accustomed to ride about the ™*chants
country spying out the nakedness of the land, and with their ready
money buying up at first hand wools and woollen cloth from such
indigent people as were content to sell at great loss ; they had also begun
to manufacture, owing to which the price of woollen cloth had fallen.
They were therefore restrained from buying wool, woolfells, cloth, or
tin excepting in the markets of London, Hampton, or Sandwich. In
the following year the town scems to have become the resort of several
wealthy Italians.

In 1464 (4 Ed. IV.) Southampton was one of the ports from Export for
which, in common with Poole, Chichester, Sandwich, London, Ipswich, ¥°°*
Boston, Hull, and Lynn, wools, woolfells, shorlings and morlings—
that is, shorn sheep-skins and wool from the dead sheep—might be ex-
ported to the staple at Calais.

In 1492 (June 24, 7 Hen. VII.), a staple of metals was erected at Staple of
Southampton by royal proclamation, it being averred that mines of ™'**
gold, silver, tin, copper, lead, and other metals remained unworked in
England; in consequence of this the king had licensed an incorporation
of a mayor and fellowship of merchants of the staple of metals at
Southampton, for the purpose of working mines and uttering metals at
reasonable prices. No metals were henceforth to be exported but at

 

1 Rot, Parl, v. 214, 216. 2 Ord. of Privy Council, vi. 156.
3 Rot, Parl., v. 245. 4 Ibid., v. 334. 5 Ibid., v. 563.
Assign-
ment on
customs,

Falling off
ot trade,

256 TRADE OF THE TOWN.

 

one of the staples ; nor was the melting of tin ore permitted to any
who were not of the guild.

A considerable section might be written on the assignments made
from time to time on the customs of Southampton. Only one or two
instances can be given.

In 1417 (5 Hen. V.) the Bishop of Winchester (Beaufort), then
chancellor, had lent to the victor of Agincourt the sum of £14,900 on
security of the customs of wool, hides, wine, and all other merchandise
in the port of Southampton and its dependencies; and the amount was
not a third repaid when, in 1421 (9 Hen. V.), he advanced another
£14,000 on the same security.? These heavy loans and assignments in
repayment on the customs of Southampton were woven into the accu-
sations against Beaufort made by Humphrey, Duke of Gloucester, in
1440. Hampton is represented to the king as being ‘the best port in
your royaume;’ the cardinal, with his customers there, was not only
the Jargest wool merchant in the kingdom, but more than probably was
carrying on a trade directly prejudicial to the king’s interest.?

Again, in February 1433 (11 Hen. VI.), the customs were pledged
to the feoffees of the Duchy of Lancaster from the Easter of that year,
to the amount of #6028, 13s. 74d. for money borrowed by Henry
V.;4 and two years later (Feb. 1435, 13 Hen. VI.) the feoffees made
another advance on a further assignment of the customs of the port of
Southampton® In 1451 a preferential payment of £20,000 was
assigned on the subsidies of London and Southampton for the defence
of the realm. Assignments for the royal household and in grants to
officials and others cannot be specified.

During the first half of the reign of Henry VIII. there seems to
have been a brisk traffic from Southampton, as well as from London
and Bristol, with the Mediterranean and Levant. From hence were
exported woollen cloth, calf-skins, &c., the chief imports being silk,
camlets, rhubarb, malmsey, muscadel, and other wines; oil, cotton,
wool, Turkey carpets, galls, and Indian spices.

At the same time during this period the townsmen were bitterly
complaining of the falling off of trade. In November 1528 the Bishop
of Bangor, writing to Wolsey, and telling him of the joy in Hampton
at his elevation to Winchester, by which he had become Earl of the
former town, speaks of the hopes entertained from him by the towns-

 

1 See Letters of Rich. III. and Hen, VII. (Rolls Series).

2 Rot. Parl. iv. 111, 132.

8 Wars of English (Rolls Series), ii. 440. On the above accusation, however,
see Prof, Stubbs, Constit. Hist., ili, 91.

4 Rot. Parl, 437, 463; Ord. Privy Council, iv. 141, 143.

5 Ord, Privy Council, iv. 290.
TRADE OF THE TOWN. 257

 

folk who had now small resort of shipping. In 1533 we have the
complaint that the galleys and carracks do not come as they used.

Under 1551 we have a notice of some sixty ships laden with wool
for the Netherlands sailing from this port; but the period of decay
had set in,

At this time (1551) the expediency of establishing a free mart in Proposal

‘ ‘ for free
England for the merchandise of cloth and tin was debated, and a paper mart.
on the subject was left in the handwriting of Edward VI.

The experiment was first to be tried at Southampton, as a con-
venient resort for the merchants of Spain, Brittany, Gascony, Lombardy,
Genoa, Normandy, and Italy, especially at that time, when circum-
stances were likely to ‘decay the marts of Antwerp and Frankfort ;’
Southampton being also a better port than Antwerp. In the event
of success at this port, the scheme was to be extended to Hull, which
would serve for Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway.

Free mart was to be kept at Southampton for five weeks each year, Details.
commencing after Whitsuntide, so as not to interfere with St. James’s
Fair, Bristol, or Bartholomew Fair in London: freedom from arrest
was ensured in coming and going, except in cases of treason, murder,
or felony: no goods were to be shipped during the fair from any other
place along the coast from Essex to South Wales: Southampton was
to enjoy a strict monopoly during that period, no bargaining of
wares being allowed elsewhere throughout the shires of Hants, Wilts,
Surrey, Kent, or Dorset: a special pie-powder court was to be erected :
agreement was to be made with the merchants of the staple not to
hinder the mart by their liberties: fresh advantages were to be given
to the Southampton people, who might also have a loan of money, if
such could be spared: a good look-out would be kept by the king’s
ships at sea.

After this, ‘the discommodities and lets’ to the mart are ranged
under eight heads, with an answer to each. It might be said that
‘ strangers lack access hither by land,’ but enemies would lack the same—
an advantage not applying to the Flemish city: if the ill-working of
our English cloths were objected, Parliament was about to take that in
hand; yet even now the Flemings sought English manufacture: if it
were urged that there was too much English cloth already in the
Flemish market, the cloth might be bought up with English money
and conveyed to Southampton for retail during the mart. The great
merchants, it was true, had their dwellings at Antwerp, but they could
enjoy no peace or safety there; they came from Bruges, where they
were first settled, to Antwerp for English commodities, and now they
would come to Southampton. As to the ‘ poverty and littleness of the

town of Southampton,’ room enough would be found for the strangers,
R
Grants of
Queen
Mary,

Town loss
through
Turkey
Company.

258 TRADE OF THE TOWN.

 

who would meet there not only the town’s people, but foreigners,
Spaniards, Germans, Italians, Flemings, Venetians, Danes, &c., who
would all trade together; and the merchants of London, Bristol, and
of other places would certainly be found at Southampton during the
mart.! Nothing came of this scheme.

“Tn order to recover a foreign trade to the town,” continuing Dr.
Speed from where we last left off (p. 251), ‘ Queen Mary being pleased
“with her reception when she met Philip of Spain, who landed here,
“gave the Corporation a grant that all malmseys and sweet wines
“ rowing in the islands of Candy and Retimo, or within any part of
“the Levant, imported into England either by denizens or strangers,
“should be landed only at the port of Southampton, on pain of
“ forfeiting 20s, for every butt, one moiety to her Majesty, the other
“to the town2 This grant was confirmed by Act of Parliament, 5
“ Eliz. 1563, but was limited to importations made by strangers;
“which being only a temporary Act, it was made perpetual by
“ another, 13 Eliz. 1571.” The privilege was worth some 200 marks
a year?

“ The grant is still in force [1770], but the establishment‘ of the
“ Furkey Company [in 1605], who have a grant of an exclusive right
“to the Levant trade, and a.p. 1615 procured [April 17] a royal
“ proclamation to be issued to prohibit the importation of sweet wines
‘‘ by foreigners, quite deprived the town of the benefit of it. The town
“had many controversies on the subject, and [August 1615] petitioned
“the king for redress.’ The matter was referred by the council to
Secretary Lake, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Master of the Rolls,
and Attorney-General, who ordered the town to withhold their suit
for a time owing to the troubles in Turkey. After waiting eighteen
months they petitioned again, and their case was referred to Secretary
Naunton, Sir Fulk Greville (afterwards Lord Brooke), then Chancellor
of the Exchequer, Sir Julius Caesar, the Master of the Rolls, and the
Attorney-General, who pronounced for the petitioners: ‘‘ on which the
“Turkey Company were ordered to make some recompense to the
“town; but they never did. The recompense desired by the town
“was the liberty to import currants from the Levant.” In 1618 the

2

 

1 Burnet’s Collectanea, vol, ii, pt. ii, pp. 115-120.

2 Pat, r and 2 Phil, and Mary, part x. (August 9, 1554); Pat. 4 and 5
Phil, and Mary, part v. (June 17, 1558).

3 «The Corporation usually farmed out this duty, sometimes for £200 a
“ year, as they set forth in a petition concerning the surrender of their charter in
“1683. In 29 Eliz. 1587 the Earl of Leicester paid for it £133, 6s. 8d.; in
“31 Eliz, 1589 the Earl of Essex paid 200 marks,”

* Two temporary companies had been granted by patents of Elizabcih
respectively in 1581 and 1593.
TRADE OF THE TOWN. 259

 

town had asked a compensation of #100, while the Company would
only offer £50. By April 1624 the Corporation put their losses at
over £1000, but eventually got nothing.

“Tn 1635 it was determined by a decree of the Exchequer that
“ Malaga wines were within the town’s grant; and in 1723, upon
“examination of the above decree, it was found that all the ports of
“Spain within the straits were equally within the town’s grant, and
* that natives importing in foreign bottoms were to pay the duty. But
“there is now [i.e., c. 1770] so little wine imported in foreign bottoms
“that it comes to nothing. The sweet wine duty produces now about
“ £20 a year, which is mostly, if not all, paid by Jews in London.”

There is little doubt that the settlement of foreign refugees in 1567 Decay of

did something for trade, though the town was loth to own it (see under ee
‘French Church’), Under 1582 we find among the alleged causes of pica
decay the haunting of pirates,’ the numerous shipwrecks, and past
abuse of prosperity; evidently the finger could not be put on the
disease, but a suggestion is made of two free marts in the year, the pay-
nent of half customs, or a monopoly of the trade with Spain and Portugal.
In 1587 (April) Leicester writing to Walsingham says that Bristol,
Hampton, and others of the best towns are fast falling to decay ; some-
thing must be done to revive trade, while great credit was due to the
clothiers, who often kept the people at work to their own loss. In the
year of the Armada (1588) the mayor writing to the council (April)
says they are unable to furnish the two ships and pinnace required on
account of the decay of trade and their heavy charges; morcover above
a hundred and ten mariners had been pressed in the town for her
Majesty’s ships, so that there would not be enough found to man the
vessels. Portsmouth was also said to be in a ruinous and weak
condition.?

Belonging to the unprosperous reign of Elizabeth there remain Merchant
among the town records several merchants’ agreements with the owners $f this
of vessels, the greater number of which were of very small tonnage. ¥™*
Under 1576 mention is made of the ‘Hope,’ ‘Gabriel,’ ‘ Trinitie,’
‘Mayflower, ‘ Dove, of Hampton, the owners of which devised them
for one ‘ viage’ to certain persons who were to pay the crews and other
expenses ; and most merchants seem to have declined the responsibility
of a whole vessel. Thus the ‘ Mayflower,’ 28 tons, was let out :—

 

1 Piracy was and had been a constant evil. In 1550 there was a great
take of pirates by the royal ships in the neighbourhood ; some were executed and
hung in chains at the admiralty gallows here, others distributed to other places
‘ for a terror and example.’

2 There are several documents of Lord Howard of Effingham of this period,
1588, among the Corporation papers,
Piracies.

Shipping in
the port,

Other

accounts,

Decay of
port and
town,

260 TRADE OF THE TOWN.

 

‘John Cotton, m' of the Mayfflower, burthen of xxviij tonnes or thereabouts,
hath demised unto Nicholas Capelin five tonnes, Thomas Buck six tonnes, John
Hooper seven tonnes, of Suthampton, merchantes, for one viage from hence to
Burdeux, ther to tarrie xvj dayes, to unlade and also to relade, &c., and from
thence to Suthampton, fraights for every tonne xxxj® th’one halfe at the right
discharge and th’other halfe within tenne dayes after at the porte of Suthampton
foresaid, The merchants to pay all the duties, the m‘ and five men,’

A few months later occur several notices about piracies, and pro-
ceedings accordingly. In 1619 the port was required to raise £300
towards the suppression of this curse; but the mayor wrote to the
council that with difficulty they had managed #150, and could not
possibly do more. In 1622 the Corporation protest again ‘their burdens
are excessive; they have contributed £300 towards the fleet sent against
the Algerines, have lent #140 for the Palatinate wars, and contributed
towards the French Protestants; they have lost much by their trade, so
greatly depending on France.’

About 1572 there were fifty-three ships in the port of Southampton
—the same number as at Bristol—a low figure as compared with some
other places. There was one ship of 200 tons, one of 80 tons, one of
60, two of 50, one of 4o, two of 35, six of 30, four of 25, ten of 20,
four of 18, eight of 15, two of 12, four of 10, six of 5, and one of
6 tons.

In 1598 we find Southampton reckoned among the decayed towns,
such as Newcastle, Hull, Boston, Lynn, northwards; and Poole, Wey-
mouth, Bristol, and Chester, west and southwards.?

Camden (1586—-go) and Speed (1596) at the close of the sixteenth
century speak nevertheless of Southampton as still rich and beautiful,
famous for the variety and neatness of its buildings, and as being the
resort of merchants. It is certain, however, that the town had before
this passed the zenith of its prosperity, and had begun to decline. The
Act of 22 Henry VIII. (1531) before quoted (p. 38) had described the
foreign trade of the town as lamentably fallen off; and a previous
statute of 1523 (14 and 15 Henry VIII.) ‘for the haven and port of
Southampton’ had recited and made perpetual one of 11 Henry VII.
(1495) cap. 5, wherein the following melancholy account is found; the
statute deals with wears and engines unlawfully placed in the South-
ampton water :—

‘ Before this tyme’ it ‘hath been the grettest haven, succour, and receite as
well for marchauntes and shippes of this realme of England as of carrykis,
galeyes and other shippes, and marchauntes of other regions and countries ther
aryving and resorting, to the profite of oure Sovereign Lord the King, the great

encrease of the marchauntes of this lond, and the comen wele and comforte of all
the countrey therto adjoynyng, the which is now lately greatly decayed, and is

 

1 Liber Notationum, sub ann, 2 Cal, State Papers.
TRADE OF THE TOWN. 261

 

like shortly more to decaie by reason and occasion of divers and many weares
and other engynes for fisshing ther made, levyed, fixed and had bitween a certeyn
place in the said haven called Calshord and another place in pe seid haven called
Redbrigge,’ by reason of which ‘within fewe yeres no ship of greate burden shall
mowe come or arive in the seid Haven without due and hasty remedy be purveied
in this behalfe.’

We have already mentioned some of the remedies attempted for
the decay of trade at this port under Edward VI., Mary, and Elizabeth.
Under James I. the Corporation obtained an Act of Parliament?
(4 James I. c. 10, 1606-7) for confirmation of some parts of the charter
granted in the 23 Henry VI. (1445) and for relief of the town, in which
the privilege of exclusive trading in the town was maintained for its
own freemen, exception being made in favour of the barons or burgesses
of the Cinque Ports. We now resume and finish Dr. Speed’s chapter,
with the omission of two or three sentences :—

“* After this the trade of the town was principally with France and
“ Spain; for which reason they opposed the establishment of a com-
** pany of Spanish merchants in the city of London.

* a.p. 1636. An additional duty was laid upon bay-salt, and this
“ town petitioned to be exempted from it because most of the shipping
“ belonging to the town was employed in the Newfoundland fishery ;
“and they were exempted in consequence of a certificate from the
“customers that the town was in the division of the western ports
‘‘ which were to be excused.

“a.p. 1656. The town petitioned the Parliament to be made a free
“ port, setting forth that it was the only port in England for the Levant
“trade. This matter of making the town a free port has often been
talked of.2 After the Restoration they had a great trade here for
“ French wines, which lasted till the high duties laid upon those wines
“very much lessened the demand for them, which drove our merchants
‘into the Portugal trade, and they are now very deservedly remarkable
“for the goodness of their port wines. Besides this, they have had a
“ Norway trade for timber, but they now deal chiefly with Russia for
* timber and hemp.

“The Guernsey and Jersey trade mostly centres here, and they have
“a pretty good share of coasting and coal trade.

“ All the Cornish tin was once brought to Southampton, and the

 

1 Dr, Speed has given the Act in full in his Appendix, It is printed in
Statutes of the Realm, vol. iv. p. 1148, An exemplification of these privileges
as to buying and selling, dated Westminster, 24th July (1607), 5 James I., with
the great seal attached, is shown in the Hartley Museum,

2 In 1754 the Corporation abolished their petty customs on African and
American goods for twenty-one years, and offered any foreign merchant com-
position on reasonable terms.

Dr. Speed
resumed,

Tin.
General
notices
resumed,

Efforts at
restoring
trade.

two
oO
NO

TRADE OF THE TOWN.

 

“ warehouse where it was kept is still called the Tin-house. There was
“ besides an office for the receipt of the duties upon tin, which is the
“great house next to Holy Rood Church. When this method of
e brinaite the tin hither began, or how long it lasted, I do not find;
“ but the “in-house is mentioned in some BE the ancient laws of the
town, and 29 Henry VIII. (1537-38) the Journal says a burgess was
“ made with a view of bringing the tin trade to the town. But they
“‘ must have had it long before this, for 31 Henry VI. (1453) the king
“ arrested all the tin in Southampton, and sold it to bis own present
“ yse.l The office above mentioned was built about 5 Edward VI. (Jan-
wary, 1551-52).”

To return to the general history. None of the specifics of the
period were of avail to stay the gradual decline. Yet it is not to be
supposed that the townsfolk succumbed to fate without many an effort.
The Journal of November 2, 1666, attempts in the following way to re-
lieve the local depression :—

‘Whereas it hath pleased God by a late distructive fire to consume the greatest
parte of the City of London, whereby many persons of quality have lost their
habitacons in that place, and ‘there being in the Towne of Southampton (hereto-
fore a place of very considerable trade, which by reason of the late civill warrs
and mortality there is now depressed and gone) many very good houses with con-
venient cellars and warehouses, which now stand void and unimployed, wee the
Mayor, Bayliffs, and Burgesses, out of tender respect to those sufferers before
mentioned doe hereby publish and declare that if any of them that are merchants
and men of credit and reputation shall think fitt to settle themselves upon the
accompt of trade within the said towne, they shall for some small acknowledgment
be admitted into the Corporation there, and be made as free to all intents and
purposes as any member thereof. And this offer to continue for the space of
twelve months after the date hereof and noe longer.’

The result does not appear. In the following century (1761) the
Corporation made a similar offer, inviting ‘merchants of credit and
substance’ to settle in the town, and offering (June 19) burgess-ships

gratis to such as should come to reside, or should establish mercantile

houses in the town.

All this bears out the picture of Bishop Gibson (1695-1722), who
describes the greater part of the trade as lost and the great houses of
the merchants as ‘ dropping to the ground.’* The local poem of the
same period by Dr. Speed, printed as an appendix to Batt-upon-Batt,
mourns to the same effect :—

. . ‘Hampton, in the days of yore,
The lawful pride of all the southern shore,

 

1 “ Cottoni Posthuma, p. 184.”
* Defoe (1726), Letters, ii, 80, 81, and Stukeley (1723) give similar accounts.
TRADE OF THE TOWN. 263

 

With all advantages of Nature graced,
Betwixt the arms of fair Antona placed ;
Guarded by forests both on land and sea
From storms, and man, the ruder enemy.’

Yet all is now changed—it is not an easy poem to quote from, and
a little will suffice :—
* For age, who like a bloodhound glory traces,

And destroys towns as well as handsome faces,
Hath made thee poor and dull like other places,

Whither are all thy winged lovers flown,

The mighty carracks and great gallion,

With all that numerous train which did resort

In marine coaches to thy crowded port?

They cease their courtship now, and only own
Thou hast been once a rich and handsome town,’

It appears that before the middle of the eighteenth century the Newfound-
Newfoundland fish trade, which had been chiefly ‘located in this port, ene
had migrated to Poole.

The Guernsey and Jersey trade, which seems to have moved to this ie a
town from Poole? about 1515,” was in the middle of the last century, trade,
as stated above, in a flourishing condition; and wool was exported in
large quantities from Southampton to the Channel Islands for the
manufacture of worsted stockings, which were sent to England for sale.

A brisk wine trade was carried on, together with much smuggling.

A few years later it seemed as if the old spirit for build war ships Sheela
in these waters were revived. The great building period was, no doubt,
the reign of Henry V. Here he “built his Eanous ships the ‘ Holy
Ghost’ and ‘Grace Dieu,’® the former by William Soper in 1414,
the latter by Robert Berd, clerk, surveyor, in 1417, each ship costing
about £500; and in July 1418 the Bishop of Bangor was sent down
from London to consecrate the latter, receiving £5 for his expenses.*

These ships were adorned with the royal devices, swans and antelopes, and
with the royal motto. In November 1594, from a list of ships built in

 

1 Poole had been formally constituted a port in place of Melcombe, then
decayed, in January 1433-34, on the lines of Southampton (Rot. Parl,, iv. 445),
as Melcombe had been (Ibid., ili. 70), and now again by order of the Treasury
the custom-house at Poole has been closed, June 30, 1883, and that port placed
under the collector at Weymouth,

2 Boke of Remembrances, f. 16.

3 The old ‘ Grace Dieu’ probably came to an end in 1460, Whenin January
that year some of the Earl of Warwick’s men from Calais surprised Lord
Rivers in bed and cut out his ships from Sandwich, the ‘ Grace Dieu’ could not
“be had awey because she was broke in the botome’ (English Chron,, Camd.
Soc., p. 85).

* Devon's Issue Rolls.
264 TRADE REGULATIONS.

 

the several ports from the year 1581, amounting in all to forty-six, we
find twenty-five built in London, seven in Bristol, two in Southampton,
nine in the western ports, and one each in Ipswich, Hall, and Liver-
pool, with the royal allowance of five shillings a ton towards each.’ But
now in March 1782 the ‘ Mediator,’ 44 guns, was launched at Northam;
on the stocks were the ‘ Regulus, 44, and ‘Stately, 64; the ‘Saturn,’
74, was about to be laid down ; she was launched in 1786. About the
same period (April 1781) the ‘Agamemnon,’ 64, was launched from
Buckler’s hard on the Beaulieu river; in 1789 the ‘ Illustrious,’ 74, from
the same yard, making the twenty-first sbip of the line built there by
Mr. Adams; and in 1791 the ‘ Beaulieu, 40, and in 1793 the ‘ Santa
Margaritta,’ 56, were added to the number.? No ships of war are now
built at Southampton; at the same time vessels are Jaunched in our
river (see below) which would have astonished our forefathers, whether
of the period of the snakes, cogs, and busses of Henry II., or of the
dromons of Henry V., or of the gallant three-deckers of our more im-
mediate ancestors.

Section II.—TZrade Regulations.

The following trade regulations in Southampton are gathered from
the town books :-—

Bakers’ The lakers, like most of the trades, were gathered into a corporation,

hon. With a common hall, admitting into their number by fine; and, like all
the other trade corporations, they had relation to, and were supervised
by, the town.?

In 1519 (11 Hen. VIII.) the bakers complained that the profits of
baking biscuit for ships was engrossed by certain of their craft by subtle
means, to the prejudice of the rest; for reformation whereof it was
agreed before the mayor and his brethren, with the assent of all the
bakers, that in future—

‘Every baker shall bryng his porcion of biscatt into the hall over the market-
place, and there to be sold by the mastres of the craft indifferently, so that every
man shall have his porcion, and that no man take uppon hym to do contrary to
this agrement uppon peyne to lose for every tyme x*; therof vj®* viij* to the
towne’s use, and iij® iiij* to the light of Seynt Clement, and for the seconde
defawte . . . to lese the libertie of there corporacon for ever,’ 4

The bakers had always to report to the town on the stock of grain
they had ready for the supply of the public;® the same applies to the
brewers. °

 

1 Cal, State Papers. 2 Local Newspapers,
8 In 1441 all the bakers were fined. 4 Boke of Remembrances, fol. 18,
5 Thid., fol. 26 b, ® Ibid., fol. 30.
TRADE REGULATIONS. 265

 

In 1546 (38 Hen. VIII.) half a mark was received of the bakers for
‘sealing their corporation,’! and the same for that of the brewers.
Under 1584 the fine for admission into the corporation of bakers was
fixed at twenty-six shillings and eightpence, half of which went to the
town, and half to the corporation of bakers.”

In 1596 (March 25), in view of the scarcity of corn and the different
kinds of bread then made, namely, white, wheaten, and household, it
was thought convenient :—

‘ That only one kind of bread be made, which should be made of the wheat or
other corn wholely as it comes from the mill without sifting or otherwise hand-
ling the same, either by taking the flour, the bran, or gurdgeons from the same,
and in no case to make white or wheaten called raunged® bread, but one only
sort of waye bread or household leavened bread, the same to be good and

wholesome for man’s body, and not corrupted (as by the statute in this behalf
made).’ 4

In 1644 the assize of bread was fixed at thirty-two shillings the
quarter or four shillings the bushel; the year before it was thirty shil-
lings the quarter or three shillings and ninepence the bushel.5

On February 20, 1663, a ‘mutiny’ occurred among the poor in
consequence of the scarcity of bread, upon which Mr. Mayor summoned
all the bakers and millers of the town to the council-house, and in pre-
sence of the justices and assistants offered them good wheat till harvest
next at four shillings and sixpence the bushel, provided they would
receive it in eight or ten days. And that they might not pretend want
of money, he offered to give time for the payment, and to lend a store-
house gratis to hold forty or fifty quarters. On this the bakers and
millers engaged not to sell wheat or meal above four shillings and _six-
pence the bushel till June 24th, and bread four shillings and sixpence.

Barlers——The fine for barber-craft, which embraced common
surgery, was divided as usual between the town and the corporation of
the craft. In 1512 (Feb. 9) Joanna, late wife of a barber, came before
the mayor and agreed to the fine of twenty-six shillings and eightpence
for setting up barber-craft, one moiety to go to the town, the other to
the craft :—

‘Whereunto the said barbours of there frowerd mynde wold not aggre, And
because the barbours be bounde by there corporacon to do no thyng which shalbe
prejudicall to the towne, therefore it is put to there choyse, whether ¢hey will pay

to the towne the said 13° 4% for the towne’s part, and she not to occupy the
craft, or elles she to pay it, and occupy the craft.’ 6

The town at any rate should not to lose its fine.

 

1 Temp, T. Overey, sub ann, 2 Boke of Remembrances, fol. 141 b.,
3 Raunged, ranged or sifted. * Ibid., fol. 195.
5 Journal, sub ann, ® Liber Remembrance, H., f. 180,

One kind
of bread.

Assize,

Barber-
surgery,
Trimming,

Wholesale
and retail.

266 TRADE REGULATIONS.

 

1577. Paid Richard Davis, the barbour, the xvij™ of August in
parte paimt for healing Mother Chriscians legge of the almes house, x*?
Under 1638 (Dec. 14) we find the holder of an episcopal license in
trouble. Martin Peale, a barber (surgeon), having been amerced by the

leet jury, not only refused to pay, but

‘ Demeaned himself in a most insolent and contemptuous manner to the House,
slighting and vilifying the magistrates and theire favour in granting him a free-
dome to use his trade here, saying that hee was not admitted a freeman by the
Towne but by the Bishop, and that hee was told another tale when hee was with
the Bishop. And being reproved by the House for his unmannerly language,
said that hee had noe respect for this House and never got 6% by the House; which
proud and peremptorie language of soe meane a fellow in this place is not to bee
indured. It is therefore this day ordered that he finde sureties for his appearance
at the next sessions of the peace there to answer,’ &c.?

The following entry concerns barber-craft in the modern sense. In
1608 the barbers complained of the infringement by one of their number
of the orders made and subscribed in a past mayoralty ; in consequence
of which the offender paid two shillings and sixpence to the poor, and
it was ordered (Dec. g), and agreed to by the barbers, that none of them
should henceforth trim any person upon the ‘ Saboth daye,’ unless in the
case of gentlemen strangers who should be in the town, or who should
resort toit and desire to be trimmed at such otherwise forbidden time.?

Brewers.—In 1488 the fine for beer-brewing for the whole year for
three persons was ten shillings each. In 1531 (23 Hen. VIII), for the
avoidance of gambling and idleness in the town, ‘ by reason that every
other howse is a bruer or tapper,’ it was agreed that ‘a certen of bruers
bothe of ale and bere’ should be appointed ‘ to serve substancyally the
said town, and also acerten yn every warde to be tappers of the same,
fynding suretie that no nyght wacche ne unlawful games shalbe usid
within there howses.’? The brewers were to serve their customers in
the gross, and not to tap beer for them in their houses, on the principle
‘that one may lyve by another.’ The tappers were the retail dealers or
innkeepers.*

The following entries are worth noting :—

1552 (Nov. 6). Brewers were forbidden to receive their wood and
fagots in carts or wains, but only by water in boats, upon pain, &c. ;
but’ they might have what was meant for their own consumption
brought like other people.®

1562. Brewers were prohibited the use of iron bands on their cart
wheels, ‘for that it is thought to be a great annoyance to the town

 

1 Temp. T. Overey, sub ann, 2 Journal, Dec. 14, 1638.
3 Journal, sub data. * Boke of Remembrances, fol. 29.
5 Thid., fol. 64.
TRADE REGULATIONS. 267

 

in breaking the pavement, which hath been, and is daily, chargeable to
the inhabitants, upon pain,’ &c.!_ The shaking up of the beer was also
a grievance. In 1577 this inconvenience was charged to the use of
iron-bound carts. Such a cart not only caused

‘Decay’ to the pavement, but it ‘ causeth the beer to work up in such sort
that the barrels seem to be full when they are brought, but when they are settled
they lack some a gallon of beer, some more, to the enriching of the brewers but
the hindrance of the town,’

Two years after this the court leet presented, as they had often done
before—

‘ That the bruers cartes arre bounde with iron, contrary to the comaundement
to them geven, wherefore they are to be amerced, for that yt is not only a greate
decayeing of the pavement of this towne, but also the cause of the spurging of
theire beere so that their barrels can not come full to theire customers,’ 2

It was the practice, however, to bring round ‘ filling beer’ to make up Filling
deficiencies, a rule sometimes overlooked by the brewers. But in 1579 nee
the following curious regulation was made for the purpose of securing
good measure: ‘ That in consideration the brewers shall not be here-
after constrained to bring “fylling beer” about to their customers,’
they are to allow them twenty-one barrels for twenty, and at the same
time are to see their barrels sent out full. Clay from the Saltmarsh
was used instead of bungs, and the jury were constantly bidding the
brewers fill up the holes as they dug from time to time, or dig no
more.*

The following regulations occur :—

In 1553 a certain person was admitted into the corporation of Licensing.
beer-brewers, and licensed (with another of the same corporation) to
serve with beer Jersey, Guernsey, and Alderney.®

In 1553 no beer-brewer was permitted, as before, to sell otherwise
than in gross, and not by retail as by the pot or gallon, nor was he to
‘ occupye any typpling,’ z.e., keep a public-house. Nor was any brewer
to sell the best beer above two shillings the barrel, or to make any
‘dobyll dobyll bere,’ upon pain, &c. The best sort of beer or ale was
to be sold at a halfpenny a quart.®

In 1557 the prohibition against the extra strong beer remained, and
was repeated in subsequent years. Good beer? was to be twenty-two
pence the barrel,® single beer fourteen pence, and three halfpence beer
not above eighteen pence the barrel.

 

1 Boke of Remembrances, fol, 92 b. 2 Court Leet Books, 1577, 1579.
3 Boke of Remembrances, fol. 135 b., * Court Leet Books, 1567, &c.

5 Boke of Remembrances, fol. 65. 8 Ibid., fol. 70.

7 Ibid, fol. 77. 8 In 1570 it was to be 20d.
Where to
sell meat,

268 TRADE REGULATIONS.

 

In 1596 the prohibition of double beer being repeated, an order
was made to brew ‘one sorte of verie good and wholesome ordinarie
beere’ at two shillings and sixpence the barrel and not above. But
at the end of the year a beer-brewer, who appears to have been bailiff
as well as a burgess of the town, was called to the Audit-house on a
charge of brewing double beer, and on his contumacy was ‘ disgraded
of his burgess-ship,’ and finally ‘committed to the Counter for his pre-
sumption and obstinacy.’?

Whether heads were stronger by the end of Elizabeth’s reign, or for
other cause, ‘doble’ beer? was permitted to be brewed in 1601 at three
shillings and fourpence the barrel, and single at one shilling and eight-
pence. The price of double beer in 1606 was the same as above, but
the ordinary was two shillings the barrel. It was further ordered that
there were to be but ‘six brewers within the town,’ who should ‘sell
their ale a full quart within doors and three pints without doors.’* The
assize was, of course, regulated by the price of malt and hops; and in
January 1607-8, malt being two shillings the bushel and hops £8 the
hundred, it was ordered ® that double beer should be sold at four shillings
the barrel, and the ordinary at two shillings. In 1643 the brewers were
sent for to the House, and ‘warned to brew theire strong beere not
above eight shillings the humberton, and theire small beere not above
[blank] the humberton,’ and not to brew at any other rates at
their peril.®

In 1702 the leet jury presented that the ancient custom of the
town was to sell beer and ale by the hooped quarts, and they desired
the justices when they granted licenses to insist upon this measure
being observed.

In 1713 the jury state that ‘the beer hogshead ought to contain
sixty-three gallons, according to the ancient custom of the town, as
proved at the assize at Winchester, March 4, 1655, in a suit com-
menced by W. Knight, brewer, of this town, for the burning of several
casks, upon the jury’s presentment that year, as may be seen in the
leet book for 1654.’ The ancient gauge for humbers was forty-two
gallons, being the sixth part of a tun, and a barrel was by the statutes
thirty-six gallons.

Butchers —In 1457 the rent for stalls at the Friar’s Gate was four
shillings each per annum, but a stall taken by the day was charged at
one penny. In 1548 the butchers above Bar were forbidden to sell
flesh in their shops by retail, but were to carry their meat to the

 

1 Boke of Remembrances, fol, 187 b. 2 Ibid., fol. 194 b.
3 Ibid., fol, 208, * Journal, 1606 (March 27).
5 Ibid., 1607 (January 27). ® Ibid., December 9, 1643.
TRADE REGULATIONS. 269

 

market at Friar’s Gate, where also all foreign! butchers were to keep
their market.2 As to the price of meat in 1549, from May 20 to
sixteen days before midsummer the butchers were ordered to sell good
beef and veal at three halfpence per pound, and mutton at twopence,
on pain, &c.3 Not only was the price set, but frequently the hours of
sale. In 1571 the butchers at Friar’s Gate were prohibited from selling
after one o’clock p.M., on pain of three shillings and fourpence for each
offence: two wardens of the butchers were at the same time appointed
to superintend all sales and matters of business. In 1579 the butchers
were forbidden to have slaughter-houses within the walls, a piece of
sanitary regulation which deserves to be noted. In October 1593,
certain irregularities having occurred, two wardens of the occupation
were appointed for the year, who, by virtue of their office, were em-
powered to search every butcher’s shop to sce that his victuals were
good and wholesome for man’s body aud not corrupt. The appoint-
ment of wardens occurs under other years: their office was always of a
similar kind,

Bull-baiting was practised not only for amusement but with a Bull-bait-
notion that it made the meat more wholesome. In February 1496 nics
John Johnson was fined two loads of fagots, to be laid at the butts
behind the west quay, for killing a bull not baited.6 Similar entries
occur in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The bull-ring was
in the upper part of the High Street.

The following presentment occurs in 1633 :—

‘That the butchers have often been warned not to beat their calves or prick Blowing up
their meat, and yet they do so beat and prick their veal, whereby the wind Veal.

entereth, so the flesh swelleth with bubbles, as it were blown, which is unwhole-
some for man’s body, for which they are amersed 10* a piece,’

And in 1675 the jury presented—

‘The dangerous practice of butchers in blowing up their veal, which may
occasion infection; as we are credibly informed is done by most of the
butchers.’?

In 1518 the butchers, chandlers, and glovers came before the mayor
in the Audit-house, and the former bound themselves to the mayor and
his brethren that they would not sell ‘ ther shepis vellis but oonly to the
glovers of this towne ;’ the glovers agreeing to give to the butchers from
Easter to shearing-time for every dozen eight shillings, from shearing to

 

1 By no means foreigners in the modern sense.

2 Boke of Remembrances, fol. 52 b.

3 Ibid., fol. 55. * Ibid., fol. 112.

5 Ibid., fol. 176. 6 Liber Remembrance, H.,, fol. 12.

7 Court Leet Book, An order at Winchester occurs under 1565, in which
butchers are warned against blowing or unlawfully stuffing their veal,
Prices,

Bad wax.

Town
chandlers.

270 TRADE REGULATIONS.

 

All-hallows-tide, two shillings and fourpence a dozen, and from All-
hallows to Shrove-tide, five shillings a dozen ;* nor were the butchers
to sell tallow to any but the chandlers of the town.

Cappers.—In 1502 the fine on admission to the craft of cap-making
was six shillings and eightpence to the town, and the same amount to
the master of the craft.”

Chandlers.—In 1507 two chandlers sufficed for the town, who bound
themselves in the sum of three marks ‘to serve the towne of candylles
of talow from hensfforthe for one farthing the pound.’ In the next
year three chandlers entered intoa similar engagement.? The price rose
in the course of a few years. In 1518 the price given to the butchers
for tallow being six shillings per hundredweight, the chandlers were
ordered to produce their candles at a penny a pound from Whitsuntide
to Michaelmas, and from Michaelmas to Whitsuntide at a penny for
the quarter pound, provided they were made with cotton, otherwise at
a penny the pound. Huxters were debarred from retailing candles
except at the above price.*

In August 1519 the curates of the town complained—

g ot9 Pp

‘That by meanes of makyng of false wex by wex-chaundelers yn myxyng
rosyn and turpyntall wt the same yn tapors and candilles, not only the images,
vestments, and awter clothes be gretely hurtid, but also it is a grete deceyte to
the byers and very noyeous to all parisshoners beinge yn the chirches at the
Dyvyne Servys. For reformacon wherof the said Meyre w' the advise of his
brethryn called before hym yn the Audite hous . . . [the] wex chaundelers, that
from hensfurth none of them shall myxe any rosyn or turpyntell wt wex yn
makyng of tapors or candilles, &c., but to make all clene wex wt white matche, and
not to use black torche weke, &c. Andevery of them to sett there marke uppon
the tapors uppon peyn to forfeit all wex so myxed, and imprisonment vj dais and

vj nyghts for the fyrst defawte, and for the seconde defawte to sitt oppynly yn the
stokkes iij markett dais, and for the iij4 defawte to be banysshed the towne.’5

In October 1548 certain tallow-chandlers engaged to furnish poor
as well as rich with candles for the following year at three halfpence per
pound, the butchers being obliged to furnish the tallow at eight shillings
per hundredweight.6 Similar arrangements were made a little later,’
and the above remained the price of candles for some time.® In 1571
chandlers were appointed for the different wards ;® in 1576 two seem to
have sufficed as formerly in the town.%° These were appointed for
twenty-one vears from Lady Day 1576; one was to serve the parishes

 

1 Liber Remembranc, H., 9 Hen. VIII.

2 Liber Remembrance, H., fol. 6 b. 3 Tbid., fol, ult, b.
4 Ibid., 9 Hen. VIII.

® Boke of Remembrances, fol. 17. 6 Ibid., fol. 52.
- Ibid., fol. 54. 8 Ibid., ful. 68 (1553). 9 Ibid,, fol, 112.

Ibid., fol, 133.
TRADE REGULATIONS. 271

 

of Holy Rood, St. Michael, and St. John, and the other to serve
All-Saints, St. Mary’s, Bag-row, and East Street; the tallow of the
butchers was to be divided equally between them.

In the reign of Elizabeth, the most depressed period for the town,
one chandler sufficed for all the local business; and towards the end
of the reign (1598), under the tight hand of the Corporation, we find
this unfortunate monopolist, ‘the town chandler,’ complaining of his
inability to serve the town as he ought, i.e., at the price fixed; he was
accordingly dismissed, and another chandler appointed.2 In 1609 the
price of tallow candles seems to have been fourpence the pound.

Cloth-workers.—In June 1504 the wardens of the shearmen (cloth- Com-
workers), with all their company, complained before the mayor and his nee
brethren of wrongs done them by divers galleymen ‘in takkyng® and
foldyng certain clothes and kersies’ contrary to their liberty; when
it was agreed that *‘ merchant strangers and Basariotts’ having servants
of their own that could ‘fold [and] takk such clothes and kersies’
might use their servants’ skill for their own goods, but not otherwise.
It was also agreed that the shearmen should take for the ‘ takkyng and
foldyng ’ for every kersey a halfpenny.*

Under 1518 we have two batches of shearmen, eight in one, and
ten in the other, there being two wardens to each batch?

In 1554 ‘northeren men,’ coming to the town with cloth to be
sold, were declared ‘free and frank of custom coming in at the Bargate
for all such cloth as they bring upon horse and pay hallage.’ ®

In 1608 the shearmen complained of their office being usurped by
certain who were now made to pay the town and the shearmen for
their privilege. In March the following year (1608-g), the cloth-
workers, clothiers, and serge-makers (French and English), were
summoned to the House, and received orders to admit no more new-
comers into their trade without leave. The same decree was issued to
the shearmen-tuckers (fullers). These latter were desired (August) to
bring their articles and orders to be confirmed and established ; the
articles which were agreed to are not recorded,

In 1618 the cloth-workers of Southampton and Winchester peti-
tioned that the late unusual exportation of wool might be prohibited
as damaging to the cloth trade, and reducing 3000 of their poor to
distress.’

In September 1629 it appearing that the cloth-workers had omitted
to read annually in public among themselves the articles of their

 

1 Liber Remembrance. (1560), fol. 196 b.

2 Boke of Remembrances, fol. 198 b. 3 Dressing.

4 Liber Remembranc, H., 19 Hen. VII. 5 Tbid., fol. 1gt.

6 Boke of Remembrances, fol. 72. 7 Cal. State Papers.
Coopers’
petition,

272 TRADE REGULATIONS,

 

corporation, they were fined #5: on paying which they were assured
of the town’s assistance in future against strangers and new-comers,
according to the purport of their corporation.

The stock of the company had to be certified from time to time to
the town. On October 14, 1670, the cloth-workers certified to having
chosen their two wardens, and to the value of their stock being £19,
8s. 6d. The serge-makers also certified, but to the effect that they had
no stock whatever.

In the court leet book of 1666 occurs a presentment of thirty-two
clothiers, embracing some important names, and commencing with
Joseph Delamot, alderman, for forcing their spinners ‘to take goods
for their work’ [7.e., instead of cash], ‘ whereby the poor were much
wronged, being contrary to the statute, for all which they were amerced
severally as followeth.’? Yet no fine appears to have been exacted.

Cobblers.—Early in the sixteenth century the cobblers were fined
for giving work in their occupation to certain men contrary to the
rules of the corporation! In 1576 they were presented as a body,
‘for that they do usse to mende and cobble mens shewen w‘ naughtie
flittinge lether.’? Trade infringements were involved in the following
entry:—Under 1578, ‘received of a shoemaker for making a fault
against the cobblers.”® In May 1633 the shoemakers complained of a
certain cobbler for making new shoes. On inquiry it appeared to the
House that both sides were in fault, viz., ‘the said Foye for making
new shoes,’ and the shoemakers for mending ‘old shoes... Thereupon
it was ordered that if either party offended, the shoemakers in mending
old, or Foye in making new shoes, a forfeit of five shillings to the
town would follow.*

Coopers——The enrolment of charter granted to the Society of
Coopers in the time of Christopher Ambrose, dated December 6, 1486,
recites their petition :—

‘To the right honorable and right gracious syrs the meyre, aldermen, wise-
men, and other good burgesses of the towne of Suthampton, mekely besechith
the poore maisters artificers of the occupacon and crafte of cowpers within the
same towne, That whereas the same artificers from daye to daye have bene, and
yet are, contributours after theyr symple power unto the grete charges, taxes,
taggages, and watches that have [been levied] upon the ayde reparacon and

defens of the same towne, and have not wherof to lyve, ne to maynteyne theyr
symple countenaunce and estate.’

They have had fair times in the past, owing to the resort partly of
many foreigners and strangers—

‘But of late ther have commen and resorted as well cowpers of aliens as

 

1 Liber Remembrance. H., f. 140 b. 2 Court Leet Book.
3 MS. Temp. T, Overey, sub anno, 4 Journal.
TRADE REGULATIONS. 273

 

of dyvers nacions, as of other Englisshe straungiers which never were prentices
of the seid occupacion and crafte of cowpers within the seid towne, and there
have occupied the seid occupation and crafte of cowpers in howses, shoppes,
and chambers within the seid towne as largely and as frely without impeticon
or any fyne makyng- unto the meyre, &c., unto the gretest damage, distruccon,
and empoverysshement of the seid maisters artificers.’

They pray that no cooper be allowed to set up unless he—

‘Have made fyne and gree with the mayre for the tyme being and with the
maisters of the seid occupacon and crafte.’

The penalties of imprisonment and fine of one hundred shillings
were added, the latter to be levied by the mayor’s command and
equally divided between the town and the coopers.! A few days after
this (Dec. 12), the steward received a fine from the master-coopers
in consideration of a livery granted to them by the mayor and his
brethren, of thirteen shillings and fourpence, together with six shillings
and eightpence, the fee for the town seal being affixed to the grant.”
At about the same period the coopers were paid eightpence for tunning
a tun of wine bought for the king on the occasion of his visit.3

Admission into the corporation of coopers was heavier than that
of the other trades. In 1608, £4 was paid, and, on the usual plan, one
half of the admission fine went to the town, the other to the society.*

In 1657 (April 17) the coopers’ charter was again confirmed with
the town seal.4

Corvesers, Cordwainers, i.e., Shoemakers.— The earliest notice
observed occurs in 1488, when the town steward acknowledged receipt
from the masters of the corveser craft (April 19) for the town’s part
of what they had gathered from the galleymen.> In the early part of
the seventeenth century the entrance to the craft was a payment some-
times of thirty-five shillings to the town and thirty-five to the shoe-
makers’ corporation.6 Jn 1713 leave was granted” to the company of
cordwainers to prosecute certain persons for using the trade of a cord-
wainer contrary to their privileges.

Dancing-School.—Thomas Grymes having set up such an establish-
ment, is ordered (Dec. 1608) to give it up, and settle himself otherwise
or depart the town.®

Fish-Sellers.—In February 1550 seven fishmongers were appointed
to serve the town for the whole year ‘with good and wholesome fish,

 

1 Liber Niger, fol. 60. 2 Liber Remembrance. H,, f. 170 b.
8 Steward’s Book, 1486. 4 Journal,

5 Liber Remembranc, H., 3 Hen. VII.

® Journal. 7 Ibid., July ro. 8 Journal,

Ss

Shoe-
makers.
274 TRADE REGULATIONS.

 

well watered from time to time.’?? Frequent orders occur about season-
ing and watering fish at the proper times.

Glovers.—The white tanyers (tanners), otherwise called glovers, were
prohibited from purchasing lamb-skins killed within the town, the
skinners having to purchase and live thereby, and sell to the glovers at a
reasonable price.2 By an order of 1518 it had been provided that the
glovers when they got their skins were to be careful to sell the wool
only to dwellers in the town, upon pain, &c.3

In January 1644-45, the glovers complaining against certain new-
comers for not ‘confining themselves to journey-work, but privately
working for themselves,’ these latter were banished from the town.*

Hackney-men.—In 1558 certain ‘horse-hirers? were appointed for
the town with two wardens. The hire of a horse was fixed at eight-
pence for the first day, afterwards at sixpence. The time set fora
journey from Southampton to London or Bristol was seven days, and
the charge for a horse was to be six shillings, with sixpence extra for
every extra day. Two days were assigned for a journey to Salisbury,
and the hire of a horse was put at sixteen-pence, and sixpence for every
day after.® Fines were paid to the town by the hackney-men for their
privileges, which were protected as usual. A few years later (1577),
the journey to London or Bristol was set at eight days,° the price being
fixed at six shillings and eightpence, with not above one shilling and
fourpence for each extra day. The journey to Sarum was still charged
one shilling and fourpence.

A copy of a letter from Hampton Court, dated January 30, 1592-93,
directs posting stations to be made between the Court, Portsmouth, and
Southampton, in order that intelligence may be had the quicker from
Normandy and Brittany, where the queen’s forces were ‘employed for
the help of the king of France against his subjects.’ The court being
at Hampton, the stations were to be at Kingston-on-Thames, Guilford,
Farnham, Alton, East Meon, Portsmouth, Southampton ; the distances
and charges for the horses being laid down.”

Lacemaker—In 1608 one of this unthriving trade petitioned for
the monopoly of ‘gathering old goods in this town;’ but his suit was

 

1 Boke of Remembrances, fol. 58.

2 Tbid., fol, 22, b, Nov. 1523.

3 Liber Remembranc. H., 9 Hen. VIII.

* Journal, Glovers could yet pity glovers, and subscribed (1577) towards
one who had been locked up four days in the Bargate for lack of a passport.

5 Boke of Remembrances, fol. 77 b.

® So in 1609 a certain person released from the Bargate receives a passport
to London, eight days being allowed for the journey (Journal, Aug, 1609).

7 Boke of Remembrances, fol. towards end.
TRADE REGULATIONS, 275

 

disallowed, as the matter was lawful for any one who carried himself
honestly.!

Linen Hall.—In May 1553, ‘considering that heretofore of long
time, for lack of good oversight,’ the merchants resorting to the town
with linen cloth had, contrary to good order, after unlading their goods,
stowed them away in various hostelries and houses, ‘the town having
both lofts and warehouses meet for the same,’ which stand void by
reason of the greediness of those who have more regard to their private
gain and lucre than to the advancement and wealth of the town, it was
ordered that the Linen Hall be used under severe penalties.2 Notices
of this hall occur from time to time,

Mercers.—In February 1486 (1 Hen. VII.) the steward received a
fine of twelve pence from a man of Havant, a mercer, for that he went
with his fardell up and down the town of Southampton hawking, con-
trary to the privilege of the mercers’ craft. Admission to the craft was,
as usual, by consent of, and fine to, the town and the company or cor-
poration of mercers within the town.

Sergemakers, Sergeweavers, and WVoolcombers.—A company of these
trades was formed in 1609 under the authority of the town, entrance
to the trade being fixed at a fine of #5, divided equally between the
town and the company. Apprenticeship was for seven years, enrolment
being ordered as usual in the town books. New-comers of the same
trade were not to be admitted into the town unless they brought a
certificate of having been apprenticed here or elsewhere for seven
years. Previously to this arrangement sergeweavers appear to have
been admitted on their giving security to the town for their sufficiency
and good behaviour.®

In 1616 articles and orders concerning the above trades received the
town seal ;° but in February 1619-20 the above corporation of serge-
makers, sergeweavers, and woolcombers dissolved by consent of all
parties.” They had not thriven on the town’s articles.

A corporation of the same trades was formed anew in 1657, their
charter being sealed on July 24; the terms do not appear.§ Shortly
after this (1663), the town being in want of a woolcombmaker to
supply the necessities of the woolcombers, Peter Purkis, whose patro-
nymic is known in Hampshire story, humbly petitioned to be made a
freeman of the town and to use the said craft. This was allowed, pro-
vided he should pay to the mayor fifty shillings by May 6.°

 

1 Journal, fol. 65 b. 3 2 Boke of Remembrances, fol. 68.
3 Liber Remembranc, H., 1 Hen. VII.

# Journal, July 20. 5 Ibid., Feb, 1608.

6 Ibid., Dec. 1616, 7 Ibid., Jan. 28, Feb. 4.

8 Ibid, July 24, 1657. 9 Ibid., March 6, 1662-63.
Tailors’
petition.

276 TRADE REGULATIONS.

 

Silkworkers.—See under ‘ French Church,

Surgeon.—In 1644-45 (Jan. 10) William Phillips, chirurgeon, was
allowed to come with his family into the town and practise physic, but
to go at a month’s notice if desired.

In 1656 (Nov. 14) Dr. Johnson was ordered to bring a sufficient
certificate from the parish where he last lived in London of his marriage
and the time he lived there. On May 5, 1667, he received #5 from
the mayor as a gratuity, beyond what he had been already paid, for his
great attention during the plague.?

Tailors—Under 1470 the fines of the tailor craft are entered at
length, two pages of tailors occurring, together with their payments:
the town and the masters of the tailoring art dividing the fines. The
usual, fine was thirteen shillings and fourpence.?

Individuals sometimes abjured their freedom. Thus, on August 18,
1474, in the presence of the mayor and his brethren and the masters
of the occupation of tailors, with many more of the same trade, Cor-
nelius Clerke ‘ released up his freedom and liberty of the said occupa-
tion,’ desiring to depart from the town and go with a carrack, swearing
on a book to do so, and never to do the same occupation within the
town. The fifteen shillings which he had paid as his fine to the town
and craft were, at his request, refunded.

Very similar in substance to the coopers’ petition given above was
that of the tailors in 1474-75, before William Overey, the mayor,
aldermen, prudhommes, and other good burgesses of the town. They
spoke of their support towards the great charges of the town for its
repair and defence, and being unable to maintain their poor estate,
they begged relief against strange tailors coming to the port in carracks,
galleys, and ships of Spain, Portugal, Germany, Flanders, &c., and
setting up their craft contrary to former and proper custom, without
fine made to the town, to the destruction and impoverishment of the
master-tailors and others of the same craft. The authorities were
prayed to order that no alien: tailor be suffered to keep shop, house, or
chamber within the town or franchises of the same for the purpose of
their work, except they first made fine and agreement with the masters
of the craft, upon pain of imprisonment for the first offence, and for
the second to be fined one hundred shillings, to be divided equally
between the town and the master-tailors. For the concessions granted
on this petition the tailors gave the town one hundred shillings sterling.*

Beneath the above enrolment is a further proviso, bearing date
October 11 (15 Hen. VII.) 1499, to the effect that it should not be

 

1 Journal, under dates. 2 Liber Remembrance. H,, fol. 36.
3 Ibid., fol. 26, * Liber Niger, fol, 13.
TRADE REGULATIONS, 277

 

lawful for any man, whether burgess or commoner, to take either as
journeyman or apprentice any other than an English subject, on pain
of losing his freedom: nor was any foreign subject to be admitted to
set up a shop for tailor’s craft on any fine whatever.

The doings of the galley-tailors had always to be watched. In
1498 the names of six offenders remain on the books: ‘ These aforeseid
tailors ben sworne uppon a boke affore Vyncent Tehy, then maire of
Suthampton, that they shall not cutte nor make no manere garnaments
of ony nacyon but of there owne nacyon upponne payne of gravouse
punyshement.,’ 4

In 1608, the corporations of the tailors and the blacksmiths having
petitioned against certain who had set up trade without being free of
the town or their corporations, were empowered to go with a serjeant
and shut down the shop windows of the intruders. The coopers and
cobblers made similar complaints shortly afterwards, and had the same
remedy.

In November 1610 the freedom of the company of tailors was
purchased at fifteen shillings and twenty shillings, the fine being
divided as usual.

In September 1616 the company seems to have been placed on a Rearrange-

f S I f ment of
new ooting. n consequence Ol— company.

‘ Divers persons, foreigners, and not free men,’ who had come to the town and
were exercising their craft, the tailors were in sad plight and likely to fall from
bad to worse; they therefore petitioned with success: I, That there may be a
settled company and fellowship of the said craft and mystery of tailors estab-
lished. 2, That they may yearly elect on the Friday before Michaelmas two
men to be wardens or overseers of the company, to have the management and
care of money, for which they must render account in the Audit-house before the
mayor, &c., to such persons as shall next succeed them in their office. 3.
Persons refusing to serve when elected to be fined thirteen shillings and fourpence,
half to the town and half to the company. 4. Apprentices to be taken for seven
years, &c. 5. Who should be enrolled in the Audit-house by the town-clerk in a
book kept for the purpose, under pain of six shillings and eightpence, half to the
town, half to the company. After this follow several other items at great length,
dealing with apprentices, journeymen, foreigners, &c.?

On a petition of the tailors (May 17, 1644), certain offending
strangers, who had kept open shop, had fourteen days given them to
finish work in hand, after which they were to work journey-work or
depart the town?

Tipplers (tavern-keepers).— Cleanliness was sometimes Jacking; a
certain Guernsey man drinking (1569) in an alehouse in the town
having been nearly poisoned owing to the dirty habit of publicans in

 

1 Liber Remembrance. H. fol. 4 b.
2 For all the above see Journal under years, 3 Journal.
Drunkards
posted up.

Alehouses
in excess
repressed,

TRADE REGULATIONS.

to
“I
~

 

not washing out their pots, ‘ for voyding the daunger thereof we request
that order may be taken that no innkeeper, tavener, or ale-house
keeper do sell wyne, berre, or alle, but that ther pottes be wasshed, that
men that byeth the same maye se the same drawen, and the pottes
wasshed to avoyd the inconveniences that maye growe thereby.’ }

In 1581 (August 10) the tipplers were forbidden to receive into their
houses any of the common drunkards of the town, the names of many
of whom are given.

In 1601 the inordinate number of alehouses was presented,” a
grievance which prevailed over the whole country.

On March 3 (1 Jas. I.), 1604, a circular letter from his Majesty was
addressed to the mayor and justices concerning the excessive ‘number
of alehouses, victualling and tippling houses within this our realme,
and of the great abuse in granting licenses for the same, and in setting
them up and putting them down at pleasure,’ without due regard to the
number or quality of the persons licensed. His Majesty, with the
advice of his Privy Council, takes order for reformation in this behalf,
and—

‘Finding that by the law and statutes of this our realm the keeping of ale-
houses and victualling houses is none of those trades which it is free and lawful
for any subject to set up and exercise, but inhibited to all save such as are
thereto licensed, which ought to be no more than a number competent for the
receipt of travellers, and for supply of wants to poor people not able to provide
for any quantity of victuals for themselves (which are the true, ancient, and
natural use of these houses), and with this also that they be not made the recep-
tacle of drunkards, felons, and loose and idle persons : we do hereby will and
command you, the mayor and justices, &c., strictly to observe and put in use the
directions hereunto annexed.’

These were :—1. Concerning the xzuxmder of such houses necessary, the
fitness of the persons to be licensed, and the revision of licenses granted before
this time, that unfit persons might be rejected. 2. Publicans were to be licensed
and allowed at the general quarter sessions. 3, Articles of good order were to
be conceived by the justices for observance by innkeepers, and the justices were
to see them observed, 4. Alehouse-keepers were bound by recognisance not to
permit unlawful games, and to bring their licenses for inspection and reconsidera-
tion at the sessions twelvemonth wherein such license was granted. 5. The

names of all persons licensed were to be registered, and a report on their conduct
to be certified by the justices to his Majesty’s Privy Council.3

Under 1608 a publican was ‘ disallowed to tipple any more’ (i.e.,
keep public-house), on account of his having kept ‘ dicing, carding, and
many other unlawful games in his house,’ which was presented by the
‘ biddels’ of the ward of All Saints: other similar instances occur. In

 

1 Court Leet Book. 2 Ibid.

3 Journal. In the Parliament which commenced March 19 the same year,
an ‘ Act to restrain the inordinate haunting and tippling in alehouses’ was passed,
1 Jas. I, cap, 9.
TRADE REGULATIONS, 276)

 

1618, eleven persons were presented for keeping alehouses without
license, so that the law had not been closely administered However,
matters were reformed, and in February 1623 the mayor reported that
he had obeyed the orders in suppressing unnecessary alehouses, and
moderating the strength of the ale brewed.

Tobacco-cutters—In 1644 a certain John Cannon, a foreigner of the
Devizes, was sent for to the House, April 12, and warned to bring in
two sufficient sureties by that day week to save the town harmless, or
else depart ; he was also warned to forbear cutting tobacco in the town
at his peril. Still he went on cutting, and (May 17) on complaint of
the tobacco-cutters, free commoners of the town, order was made that
he ‘ presume not (after hee hath cutt about 80 lb. w™ hee hath in his
house) to cutt any more tobacco for himself or any others within the
towne and the libertyes thereof at his perill.’?

Vintners.—In 1613 they were ordered to sel] their Gascony wine at
not more than sixpence a quart; subsequently (1633) white and red
claret were included in a similar order, In February 1631-32 the
vintners being summoned to the House to receive from the authorities
the price of wine, made no appearance; whereupon Mr. Mayor, with
the consent of his brethren, proceeded to publish the order for them.

HVool.— A ‘sisterhood’ of twelve women, two of them being
wardens, of good and honest demeanour, existed in the sixteenth century
as a company for the packing and covering of wool, their duties being
‘to serve the merchants in the occupation of covering of pokes [pockets]
or balous [bales]. They were sworn, and the regulations of their work
are given at length.2 The employment of women in this capacity is
said to have been of long continuance.

In 1554 certain irregularities as to the attendance of the ‘ sisters’
were adjudicated on. No one absent from her duties for more than
three months was to be permitted to return to the ‘sisterhood’ without
the mayor’s license.

The following order also occurs :—

“Item, yt is ordered by the sayde maior and his bretherne that all suche as
shalbe nomynated and appoynted to be of the systeryd shall make a brekefaste

at their entrye for a knowledge, and shal bestowe at the least xx* or ij*, or more
as they lyste.’

The names of the thirteen are given, two being wardens.*

 

1 Journal.
2 Ibid., see also Cal. State Papers, Nov. 17, 1629,
3 Lib. Rememor, BB, fol. 26 b, * Tbid., fol. 28,
London
and South-
ampton
railway.

The
Docks,

43 Geo. IIT
cap. 21,
1803.

280 MODERN TRADE.

 

Section II]].—Modern Trade.

Some account of the Railway and Docks is a natural introduction
to any notice of the modern trade of the town.

The formation of a Rarnway to London was thought of so far
back as 1825, and the question was revived in earnest in 1830, when, on
November 22, the Corporation received a deputation from the subscri-
bers to the intended railway and docks, and in consequence passed a
resolution affirming their willingness to treat with that committee, or
with any respectable company that might be formed having in view the
extension of the port.

On July 22, 1831, a resolution of the Southampton and London
Railway Company was communicated by their chairman, Colonel
Henderson, to the Town Council, empowering the directors to appoint
the mayor an ex-officio director during his year of office and the year
following. This arrangement was accepted by the Corporation, who
expressed their sense of the public value of a railroad from London to
Southampton ; an opinion which they reaffirmed by a lengthy resolu-
tion of November 16, 1833.

The enabling Act having received the royal assent in July 1834,
and the Corporation seal affixed to the conveyance of the needful land
on October 30, 1835, the works were commenced in March 1836. By
12th May 1838 the line was opened from London to Woking Common,
a distance of twenty-three miles, the trial trip being made that day, and
accomplished in forty-five minutes. In May 1839 the line was com-
pleted from Southampton to Winchester, and from London to Basing-
stoke, the intervening space of eighteen miles being performed by
coach. In the same month in the following year (1840) the whole line
was in operation.

We may now turn tothe Docks. These were contemplated under
the Act 43 George III. cap. 21 (1803), ‘for abolishing certain dues
called petty customs, &c., and for making convenient docks,’ &c., Mr.
Rennic, the celebrated engineer, having reported favourably on their
construction. The preamble of the above Act sets forth the antiquity
of the port, which was capable of being rendered more commodious by
the construction of docks and pier and the improvement of quays and
wharfs. The Corporation had been entitled to ‘ petty customs’ on
exports and imports, which rights they were willing to relinquish on
compensation being given.

The improvement sought to be carried out would involve consider-
able outlay, the cost of which should be defrayed by the trade of the
port. Commissioners for all purposes under the Act were appointed as
follows :—The mayor, recorder, common counciJ-men, and their suc-
MODERN TRADE. 281

 

cessors, with ten specific commissioners. Powers were given for making
channels in the water by placing booms ; making bye-laws for the ship-
ping in the harbour; entering into contracts for building docks, piers,
warehouses, &c.; all such erections being vested in the commissioners,
The petty customs were in future to be received by them, monies arising
from such duties being applied as follows:—1. The payment of one-
fifth to the mayor and common council for the time being, as com-
pensation for the purposes of the town. 2. To the building and
repairing of the said piers, docks, warehouses, &c., and for keeping the
channel marked out.

Accordingly the Corporation has received from the port account
one-fifth of the dues collected, one-third of the fifth being taken in lieu
of petty customs, and the other two-thirds in lieu of anchorage, ground-
age, wharfage, and storage.

The Act gave the commissioners power to remove the walls and
gates of the town, which were in the way of the needful improve-
ments (see p. 94).

The above Act was altered and amended by the 50 Geo. III. cap.
168 (June 9, 1810), as to the appointment and qualification of com-
missioners and as to the rates chargeable under the Act; but the
formation of the docks was still in abeyance owing to the demand on
capital by the improvements already being carried out (see p. 113).

It was not till 1836 that the Dock Company was incorporated by
Act of Parliament, the construction of docks being commenced in
1838 with a capital of £1,000,000, since increased to £1,500,000, of
which #1,154,711 have been used (1882), leaving the balance for
further works. Something over two hundred acres of mudland were
originally purchased from the Corporation for £5000 for the purpose
of the docks: a portion of this land still remains unenclosed.

The first stone of the docks was laid with full masonic honours on
Friday, October 12, 1838, by Admiral Sir Lucius Curtis, Knt. and
Bart., of Gatcombe House, assisted by the chairman (Joseph Liggins,
Esq.) and directors of the Southampton Dock Company, in the pre-
sence of the mayor and Corporation and a distinguished assembly.
The engineer was Mr. Francis Giles, the present member of Par-
liament.

The great tidal dock was commenced in October 1839, and com-
pleted at a cost of about £140,000. It was the largest in England,
containing a surface of £6 acres of water, 18 feet deep at low water
spring tides, entrance 150 feet wide, the average rise of tide being 13
feet; it was opened on August 29, 1842, the ‘Liverpool’ and the ‘Tagus’
entering it, the former with passengers and cargo on board from
Gibraltar, the latter with the directors. The inner or close dock, then

50 Geo.
IIT. cap.
168, 1810,
282 MODERN TRADE.

 

in progress, was not opened till 1851; it encloses 10 acres of water, and
is 28 feet deep.

The first graving or dry dock was formally opened on 11th July
1846, having been about fourteen months under construction, at a cost
of about £60,000. Another was opened in the following year. The
entrance gates of these docks are respectively 66 and 51 feet in width,
and the length of their floors 400 and 251 feet, with a depth of water
over blocks of a1 feet and 15 feet. A third graving dock was finished
in 1854. It is 80 feet wide, 500 feet in length, with a depth of 25 feet
over blocks. The fourth has an entrance directly from the Itchen. It
is 56 feet wide, 450 long, and 25 feet in depth over blocks.

The docks are fitted with all necessary appurtenances; there are
numerous cranes, and three sets of powerful sheers worked by steam,
for lifting masts, boilers, and heavy machinery up to Ioo tons weight.

It is intended to construct another dock of 37 acres with a minimum
depth of 26 feet at low water; and already the extension quay, 1720 feet
in length with 20 feet of water at low tide, is completed and in con-
stant use on its river side.

These docks having deep water, with the natural advantage of
practically four hours of continuous high water, afford every con-
venience for the largest steam-ships; and being themselves within a
sheltered, landlocked harbour, offer great immunity from risk and
accidents. Cargoes of every description are Janded and warehoused, or
forwarded by railway with great expedition, there existing from the
dock quays and warehouses perfect and rapid railway communication
to all parts of the metropolis, the coalfield, and manufacturing
districts. Additional railway facilities are about to be added by the
construction of new lines directly connecting Southampton with the
Midland and Great Western Railways. The Dock Company’s own
lines of railway, 10 miles in length, worked by their own locomotives,
runon all the quays and into and alongside each warehouse, being con-
nected at several points with the London and South-Western Railway.
Trucks pass direct between the docks and every railway in the kingdom.

There are extensive bonded and free warehouses adjacent to the
dock quays, and large vaults under the warehouses.

For the grain trade there are large and convenient warehouses fitted
with improved machinery, with deep-water berths alongside, whereat
grain-laden vessels of the largest tonnage may lie afloat and discharge.

By order of Privy Council there is a defined ‘ foreign animals wharf,’
where animals Janded must be slaughtered within fourteen days. By
the same authority there is a ‘foreign animals quarantine station ;’
animals landed there must be intended for purposes of exhibition or
other exceptional purpose. There is also under order of Council a
MODERN TRADE. 283

 

‘foreign animals reshipment station ;’ animals landed thereat must be
intended for reshipment to a foreign country. Southampton is the only
port which provides for the quarantine of foreign animals. Animals not
subject to slaughter or quarantine are landed at approved places within
the docks.

Within the area of the docks, eastward of its main entrance, is a
large sugar-refinery, constructed by the Dock Company, and leased to
Messrs, Garton, Hill, & Co. Here are made both refined sugar and
“saccharum’ for brewing. Adjacent to the saccharum works is the
extensive boiler and engine factory of the Royal Mail Steam-Packet
Company, also constructed by the Dock Company. Here are all the
appliances for the repairs of machinery and the construction of boilers
for the fleet of this company, comprising twenty-five ships. On the
western side of the close dock is a large coal depét, built by the Dock
Company, and leased to Messrs. W. Hill & Co.

On the dock estate are the custom-house, Board of Trade, and dock Custom-
offices, all substantial modern buildings, also erected by the Company. ene
The Dock Company have also two sets of complete workshops, one for ears
general repairs, the other for repairs of locomotives and pumping
engines.

The capabilities of the docks were demonstrated in the early days Embarka-
of last August (1882) by the unprecedented departure of troops. The Oe
transport department of the Admiralty dispatched hence to Egypt eleven
large steam-ships, their aggregate tonnage being37, 352tons—ten of these
vessels having been ordered here from other ports, Southampton being
selected as the port of embarkation. In one day five of the ships were
dispatched, their united lengths being onc-third of a mile. These con-
veyed, besides stores and war materials, some 1200 men and 850 horses,
all of which arrived on the morning of the departure of the ships.

The eleven transports took in all 175 officers, 3264 non-commissioned
officers and men, and 2002 horses, three batteries of artillery, Royal
Engineers’ vehicles, and sundry equipments.

‘On Wednesday, the gth of August, her Majesty the Queen, accom- viet
panied by their Royal Highnesses the Princess Beatrice and Duchess of y Meee
Connaught, their Royal Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Wales,
with their sons and daughters, His Royal Highness the Duke of Cam-
bridge, together with a number of distinguished naval and military
officers, visited the docks and inspected the various transports, the
Queen going on board one of the largest.

The establishment of docks at Southampton gave a fresh impetus to eo
all shipbuilding industries. At Northam on the Itchen, above the trade. :
docks at Northam, there is the old and prosperous firm of Messrs. Day,
Summers, & Co., where many of the largest mail steam-ships and other
Growth of
trade from
docks and
railway.

284 MODERN TRADE,

 

vessels have been built and engined. This firm manufactures large
quantities of machinery for various places in England and abroad, and
also for foreign Governments. Nearly all dockyards at home and abroad
now use Day & Summers’ steam-sheers, which have been made for lifting
weights up to 150 tons. There is also the wooden shipbuilding yard of
Mr. John Ransom, who has a fleet of sailing vessels of his own con-
struction engaged in the foreign trade. And, not to mention further
concerns of a smaller character, in 1876 the shipbuilding business was
much extended by the establishment of the iron shipbuilding and
engine works of Messrs. Oswald, Mordaunt, & Co. Since their arrival
at Southampton this firm had launched, previously to August 1882,
twenty-four sailing vessels, with an aggregate tonnage of about 40,920;
and fifteen steamers, with an aggregate tonnage of 23,763. At the
same date eleven ships were in construction with an approximate gross
tonnage of 26,707 in the aggregate. A very large trade is now being
carried on in their yard.

The modern prosperity of Southampton may be said to have been
sketched out in the Act of 1803, which contemplated docks and other
improvements; its actual growth as a prominent seaport and trading
centre followed quickly upon the carrying out of these essential works,
A Parliamentary return! of January 1847 shows how the trade had
rapidly increased since railway and dock facilities had been given, and
that in 1845 the port had stood fifth among the ports of the kingdom
in respect to the number of ships outward and inward during that year,
their tonnage, and the declared value of their exports. The number of
ships, outward and inward, was 1435, their aggregate tonnage 300,134,
while the declared value of the exports of British and Irish produce was
£1,475,000, inferior only in amount to London, Liverpool, Hull, and
Glasgow.

In 1846 the exports had risen to £2,996,275, and the number of
ships belonging to the port was 230, with a tonnage of about 14,000.

In 1880 Southampton stood fourth among the English ports in
regard to the total numbers of sailing ships and of steam-ships entering
such ports; the numbers of such ships having been for 1879—

Number of Sailing Ships. Number of Steam-Ships.
London, : 5 Fe 34,434 : : : 11,315
Liverpool, . ‘ : 6,012 . . : 7,804
Bristol, ‘ . 5,523 : ‘ ‘ 3,362
Southampton, : ? 2,744 : . . 2,125
Hull, . : ‘ ; 1,613 . q : 2,371

 

1 Evidence in the House of Commons, 1882, on Didcot, Newbury, and South-
ampton Railway Bill,
MODERN TRADE. 285

 

In regard to the tonnage of the above ships, Hull stands 1,199,005
and Southampton 919,107, so that Southampton was after Hull in
tonnage, but before in numbers. In the same list it is also before
Bristol] as to tonnage, which stands at 650,050 for the two classes of
ships.

In the next year (1880) 3637 sailing vessels and 5011 steam-ships
entered the port; and 3398 sailing vessels and 4993 steam-ships left.

In 1881, 3311 sailing and 5323 steam vessels entered, and 3101
sailing and 5245 steam vessels cleared.

In 1880 Southampton also stood third among the ports of England
in regard to the tonnage of vessels (steam and sail) which cleared from
and entered the various ports. The numbers were :—

Tonnage of Ships Tonnage of Ships
Ports. Cleared. Entered.
London, . : “i 6,024,937 . 3 10,454,171
Liverpool, . : 7,215,137 i : 7,245,227
Southampton, . ‘ 2,006,436 : 2 2,027,270

In 1880 this port stood fifth among the English ports in regard to
the tonnage of vessels belonging to the various ports, the total tonnage
of Southampton vessels being 69,308; and it stood sixth in regard to
the actual number of vessels belonging to the ports, the number belong-
ing to Southampton (steam and sail) being 323 vessels.

The value of the total exports and imports at Southampton for the
five years ending 1880 was as follows :—

Exports. Imports.
1876 . « « 8,229,850 . - = £9,198,924
1877. «8,665,078 6 6 £9,055,179
1878 . : £8,335,808 -  £9,191,027
1879. : F 48,904,622 ‘ ‘ £7:756,773
1880, 3 3 £9,306, 326 : : L9,205,183

Southampton stood fourth among English ports in regard to the
value of its exports and imports, the value being for 1880 :—

London, 2. «© » «© « * « frogwegs B36
Liverpool, . : ; 3 . : : 4£191,489,838
Hull, : : ‘ i ‘ ‘ ; £ 38,735,272
Southampton, . ; ; : : . £18, 511,509

The following table! shows the tonnage of ships entering and
clearing from Southampton :—

 

1 Statement of Dock Company, presented to the British Association, August
1882, and information of Philip Hedger, Esq., Secretary and Superintendent,
286

MODERN TRADE.

 

Tonnage (Register) of Ships for the Years 1875, 1880, 1881, 1882.

 

INWARD TONNAGE OF SHIPS.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ForREIGN. CoaAsTING.
Year. With Cargo. In Pe Total.
Sail. Steam.
Sail. Steam. Sail. Steam.
1875 | 54,952 996,013 | 102,349 | 369,673 | 26,735 | 146,524 | 1,696,246
1880 | 52,168 1,182,733 | 110,273 412,198 28,724 230,982 | 2,017,118
1882 | 45,995 | 1,183,849 | 103,373 | 389,601 32,111 273,732 | 2,028,661
OUTWARD TONNAGE OF SHIPS.
1875 | 38,499 | 1,006,124 | 65,665 | 286,469 | 74,741 | 226,437 | 1,697,935
1880 | 43,298 | 1,116,029 | 62,670 386,033 84,508 319,844 | 2,012,382
1881 | 29,833 | 1,138,651 | 60,023 411,525 94,161 359,873 | 2,088,066
1882 35,390 I, 163,228 67,370 317, 138 86,025 359,990 2,029,142
Total, 1875 : ‘ 3,394,181 tons register.

” 1880 * 4,029,500 ;, 2

” 1881 - 4,177,940 5, 5

a3 1882 7” 4,057,803 La ”

 

 

Statement showing Tonnage (Register) of Vessels entering at various Ports in 1882.

 

 

 

 

 

ForEIGN. CoasTING.
Port. Cargoes. Pe eee
Sail. Steam. | Total. Total.
Sail. Steam. | Total. Sail. | Steam. | Total.

Bristol 181,215 | 320,873] 502,088] 204,014} 455,853] 659,867] 14,474 15,890 30,364 | 690,231
Cardiff . 770,208 |1,381,543 |2,151,751 | 160,507} 148,955} 309,462 | 531,323 |1)442)757 |1,974,080 2,283,542
Hull. . 355,292 |1,268,143 |1,623, 435 54,131 | 198,698] 252,829] 10,931 37,837 48,768 | 301,597
Liverpool 1,502,430 |3,662,781 |5,165,211 | 316,690 |1,933,006 |2,249,696 | 150,783 | 285,713] 436,496 |2,686,192
London . 1,731,343 [4,398,684 |6, 130,027 |2, 437,738 |2,853,739 |4,291,477 | 170,470 | 94,088 | 264,558 |4,556,035
Southampton . 45,995 |1,183,849 |1,229,844 | 103,373] 389,601 | 492,974] 32,111] 273,732] 305,843] 798,817
Sunderland 178,835 | 524:453| 703,288 93,695 32,713 | 126,408 | 519,348 |1,254,617 |1,773,965 |1,900, 373
Swansea 263,306 | 342,279] 605,585] 189,666] 123,460] 313,126 | 163,285 | 315,022] 478,307] 791:433
Tyne Ports 6141968 /2,093,385 |2,708,353 | 419,252 | 308,331 | 727,583 | 438,950 |2,210,575 |2,649)525 |3,3771 108

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To
Fore

Coas!

 

1,192
41435
1,925
7,852

10,686
2,028
2,603
1,397
6,085,

 
MODERN TRADE.

287

 

Statement showing Tonnage (Register) of Vessels clearing from various Ports in 1882.

 

 

 

 

FOREIGN. CoASTING.
7 Total
ORT. Cargoes. cl a Foreige
Sail. Steam. | Total. Total. | Coasting.
Sail. | Steam. | Total. | Sail. | Steam. | Total.
ol . 78,410 | 112,015] 190,425] 89,578 | 386,770| 476,348 | 213,155) 306,908 | 520,063 | 996,411 | 1:186,836
iff . + |1,213,887 |2,686, 183 [3,900,070 | 314,497 | 368,619] 683,116 | 14,952] 43,8c2 58,754 | 741,870 | 41641,940
290, 300 |1,090, 352 |1,380,652 |] 58,943 182,329 | 241,272] 58,010! 235,502 | 293,512 5345784 | 1,9151436
“pool 1,507,193 |3,375;685 |4,882,878 | 271,778 |x, 489,825 |1,761,603 | 195,098 | 711,369 | 906,467 |2,668,070 71550948
lon . + 11,485,265 /3,160,386 |4,645,651 | 551,001 | 924,318 |1,475,319 no | record 1,475,319 | 6)120,970
nampton . 351390 |1,163,228 |1,198,618 | 67,370 | 317,138] 384,508] 86,026 | 359,990 | 446,016 | 830,524 | 2,029,142
lerland 195,949 | 677,355 | 873,284 | 562,170 |2,065,233 |1,627,403 | 12,385 | 104,023 | 115,408 |1,742,8r1 | 2)616,095
sea 328,916 | 489,560 | 818,476] 259,636 | 261,786] 521,422] 11,094: 39,678 50,772 572,194 | 1,390,670
> Ports 927,700 |3,081, 295 |3,998,995 | 446,644 |1,600,157 |2,046,80r 1404197 | 174,256 | 314,447 |2,361,248| 6,360,243

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Statement showing Total Tonnage (Register) in and out at various
Ports in 1882.

London, ‘ ‘ ‘
Liverpool, é : :
Tyne Ports, . zs :
Cardiff, . 3
Sunderland, . ; i
Southampton, . : :
Hull, . ; ‘ ;
Swansea, 4 ; ‘
Bristol, . . : ‘

It will be seen that the above returns,

Esq,, place the port sixth in the kingdom.

follows :-—
Apparel, . : F
Arms and ammunition,
Beer andale, :

Candles of all sorts, .
Cotton yarn, . “
Bags and sacks, empty,

Cotton manufactured piece goods,

Hosiery and small wares,
Earthen and china ware,

Haberdashery and millinery,

Hardware and cutlery,
Hats of all sorts,

Leather, wrought, é
Linen piece goods, é

Tons,

3 16,807,032
15,402.35 I
12,445,704

: 93977233
. 5,219,756
’ 4,057,803
: 3,840,468
: 2,787,688
2,379,155

£589,270 in value,

413,771

16,594 barre
807,300 lbs,
2,910,000 Ib

2?

1s,

Se

69,396 dozens.
322,477,100 yards.
4209,081 in value.

£22,377
£437,081
£164,142

”
a3

”

64,151 dozens.
£396,246 in value.
4,664,300 yards,

communicated by J, E. Le Feuvre,

The principal exports of Southampton for the year 1880 were as

 
288 MODERN TRADE.

 

Jute manufactures, : 7 2 ‘ 5,582,500 yards.
Machinery and millwork, . . . £259,393 in value.
Metals—

Copper, wrought and unwrought, s 13,793 cwts.

Iron, of all kinds, . 5 : , 11,453 tons.
Painters’ colours, : ‘ 3 ‘ 421,279 in value.
Paper, except hangings, ; : : 13,391 cwts.

Silk, manufactured and mixed, . , £86,401 in value.
Telegraphic wires and appliances, , £7248 in value.
Woollen and worsted yarn, . 12,900 lbs.
Woollen and manufactured cloth of all kinds, 631,600 yards.
Worsted and mixed stuffs, . ‘ 4 2,802,500 45
Flannels, carpets, &c., 5 ‘ : 1,557,600 45
Hosiery of other sorts, i : : £101,822 in value.
The principal imports! of Southampton for the year 1880 were as
follows :—
Animals, live cattle, &c., , ; ‘ 14,347 in number.
Brandy, proof ea 3 ‘ ‘ 14,357 galls.
Butter, : 3 s “ : 361,702 cwts.
Cheese, ‘ ‘ ; ; F : 19,606 ,,
Cocoa, : - ‘i : 4 . 193,844 lbs.
Coffee, ; : : ‘ i ; 106,072 cwts.
Wheat, , : z - P j 438,921 ,,
Barley, ‘ : : : F : 386,833 ,,
Oats, z 3 ‘ : : ‘ 182,009 ,,
Maize, i ‘ r ‘ . : 105,463 ,,
Dyes, indigo, ji : 3 ‘i 13,430 4,
Eggs, great hundreds, 5 : : 1,176,052.
Fruit, raw and unemptied, . ‘ : 113,650 bushels.
Hides, raw, p ‘ ‘ : 25,907 cwts.
Hides, tanned, . ‘ 4 : ‘ 41,746 lbs,
Potatoes, . : , ‘ ‘ 476,937 cwts.
Seeds, clover, sass ‘ . : é 20,810 ,,
Silk, raw, . ‘ é é . 77,670 lbs,
Silk, manufactured, : ; i 418,007 in value.
Skins (sheep), number, 5 3 é 733,790.
Sugar, unrefined, j 3 ; ; 84,207 cwts.
Sugar, refined, . . 5 : : 41,114 5,
Timber, sawn and split, : 3 : 36,271 loads,
Tobacco, unmanufactured, . : : 13,565 lbs.
Tobacco, manufactured, : 2 : 133,108 ,,
Wine, 2 : ; ‘ ‘ ‘ 206,414 galls.
Wool, é . ‘ a ‘ < 21,069,190 lbs.
Notice of It would be impossible to omit all mention of the Peninsular and

Peninsular . : ; ee
cdl Oriental Steam Navigation Company, once and for so many years inti-

oe mately associated with the prosperity of Southampton, though now all
Company. connection has been severed, and the port has recovered the blow.
This Company secured a contract with Government, under competi-

tion, for carrying the eastward mails, and obtained a royal charter in

 

1 Kindly supplied, with foregoing column, by T. W. Shore, Esq.
MODERN TRADE. 289

 

1840; it commenced with a capital of a million sterling, and power to
increase the same toa million and a half, under condition of its opening
an improved communication between England and India within two
years... The company at first selected Falmouth for landing its mails ;
but having met with several inconveniences in connection with that
port, it made Southampton its head-quarters on the completion of the
docks, in spite of a recommendation from the Treasury that Dartmouth
should be selected, as had been appointed in the case of the Royal
Mail Company and the West India mails. However, in each case the
manifest convenience of Southampton, with its docks and railway
directly in short communication with the metropolis, prevailed, and in
1842 both companies started their vessels from this port; and in
August 1843 Southampton was confirmed as the port of landing and
embarking the mails carried respectively by the Peninsular and Oriental
and the West India Companies.

The chief companies in present connection with the port are as Chief
follows :— enn

Royal Mail Steam-Packet Company, incorported by royal charter in 17, ¢°nns
1840; entered on its first contract that year to carry mails to the whole Po
of the British possessions in the West Indies and North America, with
the colonies of France, Spain, Holland, Denmark, Mexico, and the
Spanish main. The powerful ships provided by the company com-
menced their passages in January 1842, being surveyed at Southampton,
and starting from that port. After a time the original routes were
modified. The company’s magnificent fleet of steamships is divided into
two lines :—(1.) The West India line, carrying mails to the West Indies,
Mexico, Central America, the North and South Pacific ports, &c. ;
and (2.) the Brazil and River Plate line for Vigo, Lisbon, Pernambuco,
Rio de Janeiro, Monte Video, Buenos Ayres, &c.

The Union Steam-Ship Company, formed in 1853 as the Union
Steam Collier Company, its name having been altered and registered
as at present in 1856. This company is of Southampton origin, and
was originally intended by its promoters for the coal trade; but on the
outbreak of the Crimean war, the Peninsular and Oriental Company
having withdrawn their vessels from Constantinople in consequence of
their whole ficet being required for postal and war services, the directors
of this company altered their original project, and having first run
their vessels between Southampton, Constantinople, and Smyrna,
chartered them in the British and French transport service. In 1857
a five years’ contract was entered into with the Government for a
monthly mail service to the Cape of Good Hope: in 1858 St. Helena

 

1 Guide to Southampton, by Mr, C. J. Phillips.
Ships call-
ing at
port.

290 MODERN TRADE.

 

and Ascension were added; afterwards Natal. Then the service was
extended to Mauritius, to Algoa Bay, to Point de Galle, and to
Zanzibar. The ships call at Plymouth on the outward voyage to the
Cape.

The London and South-Western Steam-Packet Company is also of
Southampton growth. Its vessels carry the Channel Island mails, and
run also between this port and Cherbourg, St. Malo, Granville, Havre,
and Honfleur. The fleet numbers eighteen vessels.

Messrs. G. T. Harper 8 Co., Limited, Steam-Ships.—There are
five steam-ships belonging to this company, their tonnage being 6000.

The Southampton, Isle of Wight, and South of England Royal Mail
Steam-Packet Company, Limited.—The vessels of this company, nine
in number, ply constantly each day between Southampton, the Isle
of Wight, and Portsmouth.

The Southampton Steam-Towing Company have three vessels in
constant work,

The following companies’ ships call at this port :—

The North German Lloyd Steam-Packet Company.—Boston and
New York, New Orleans and Baltimore lines.

Liverpool, Braxil, and River Plate Company.—This company’s ships
call here homeward bound from the Brazils to land cargo, passengers,
and specie.

The Netherlands Steam-Ship Company.—The vessels of this com-
pany sail from Southampton every fortnight for Java, &c.

Rotterdam Lloyd Steam-Ships, carrying mails, sail from Rotterdam
for Java via Southampton and the Suez Canal, calling at Penang,
Batavia, Samarang, and Sourabaya.

British and Irish Steam-Packet Company, Limited—The steamers
of this company sail for Plymouth, Falmouth, and Dublin ; also for
Portsmouth and London.

City of Cork Steam-Packet Company.—The vessels of this company
call here from Cork and sail for Cork via London.

Clyde Shipping Company.—This company’s steamers leave South-
ampton for Waterford and Glasgow, and for Belfast and Glasgow,
calling at Plymouth each voyage.

Rotterdam and Southampton Line.—Ships arrive every Monday, sail-
ing thence for Liverpool.

The steamers of the Liverpool, Bristol, and London Steam-Packet
Company, and of the London and Liverpool Steam-Ship Company,
arrive here every week, calling also at Falmouth and Plymouth.

 

1 For preceding notices of the steam-ship companies, see the Guide of Mr.
Shore, executive officer of the Hartley Institute.
MODERN TRADE. 291

 

Extensive timber, grain, and coal trades are also carried on.

The following companies are in connection with the trade of the
town :—

The Southampton and Itchen Bridge Company.—It had been intended
originally to build a permanent bridge over the river Itchen at the place
of the original ferry; and early in 1834 the permission of the Corporation
was sought for making a road across the marsh to the proposed bridge,
for which a bill was in preparation for the ensuing Parliament. The
Corporation, however, fearing damage to the navigation of the river to
Chapel and Northam, refused their consent. A bill for a floating
bridge was, however, introduced forthwith, to several clauses of which
the Corporation took exception. The Itchen Bridge road was at once
carried out; and the ‘Southampton and Itchen Bridge and Roads
Company’ obtained their first Act in 1834, and their second in 1851.
Their first bridge began to ply in 1836, and was supplemented by a
service of boats. The bridges have been renewed on improved con-
struction from time to time. Two large bridges are always now run-
ning, simultaneously leaving each side of the river, so as to avoid
detention; the boats being only occasionally called into requisition.
The bridges run on guiding chains.

The Hythe Pier and Hythe and Southampton Ferry Company, Limited.
—The modern steam-ferry was started by private enterprise and a
company afterwards formed. This company now owns the Hythe
pier, recently built, and has power to purchase the ferry steamers.

The Southampton Tramways Company owns upwards of six miles of
tramway through the main arteries of the town and immediate suburbs.
It was incorporated in 1878,

The Free Colden Bridge, opened June 27, 1883, across the Itchen,
about a mile above Northam Bridge, gives another entrance into the
town through St. Denys.

On the Northam Bridge, see pp. 3, 12.

Companies
in connec-
tion with
trade of
town,

The Didcot, Newbury, and Southampton Junction Railway will give Didcot,

a direct communication with the Midland Counties, Liverpool, and

Newbury,
and South-

the North by its junction with the Great Western Railway at Didcot ; #mpton
’ ailway.

and by its junction at Aldermaston will create a new and direct
through line via Reading to and from London, Winchester, and South-
ampton. This railway is incorporated under four separate Acts of
Parliament, passed in 1873, 1876, 1880, and 1882, the Acts providing
that the undertaking shall be divided into three separate sections,
called respectively the ‘Newbury,’ ‘Southern,’ and ‘Southampton’
sections. The ‘Newbury section, from Didcot to Newbury, was opened
for trafic on April 12, 1882; the ‘Southern section, from Newbury
to Burghclere, is under construction ; and aspecial Act for the ‘ South-
Bridge of
London
and S.-W.
Railway
Company.

bo
\O
N

MODERN TRADE,

 

ampton section’ having passed a committee of the House of Commons
on May 15, 1882, and of the Lords on July 13, and the required
capital being quickly subscribed, it is anticipated that the whole line
will be completed in the course of 1884. The ‘ Southampton section’
joins the ‘Southern section’ at Burghclere, and passes southward by
Whitchurch, forming a junction with the main line of the London and
South-Western Railway to Salisbury, Exeter, Plymouth, and the West;
from Whitchurch it runs to Winchester, thence through Twyford,
Allbrook, Chilworth, and Shirley to Southampton. Here the company
will be assisted by arrangements with the Southampton Harbour Board
and the Corporation, having obtained from the latter, free of cost, a grant
of thirty acres of the mudland on the western shore for the purposes of
their stations, &c. The company undertake to construct a new rail-
way pier at Southampton, in connection with the line, for the accom-
modation of the passenger service to and from the port; in addition to
which they will have the right to the joint use of the existing Royal
Pier, access to which will be provided from the new pier. The
happiest results to the port are anticipated from the completion of these
works. The London and South-Western Company are at the same
time largely developing their system.

We may mention here also, as by no means unconnected with
trafic, the magnificent lridge lately built by the London and South-
Western Railway Company, spanning their line over the level crossings,
and having two handsome limbs of approach from the town side and
one from the Itchen Bridge road. This work, carried out by Messrs.
Joseph Bull & Sons at a cost of some £42,000, is a prominent feature
in this quarter of the town. It was opened publicly by the Mayor and
Corporation shortly before the visit of the British Association.
CHAPTER VI.

CHARITIES.
SectTion ],—Zvhe Alms-Houses.

In the year 1564, Richard Butler, in the first year of his second ees
mayoralty, aided partly by charitable contributions, erected two alms- houses.
houses for sick people or persons sick of the plague on a plot of
ground at the north side of St. Mary’s Churchyard, left to the town

by Thomas Lyster, sometime mayor (1536); and about the time of
their erection,! Lawrence Sendy, burgess, gave £20 in trust to the
Corporation for an allowance of forty shillings a year to the sick
infected poor at the alms-house, if any there were; if not, to any other

poor of the town.?

“ There were other [five ancient and decayed] alms-houses in East pascnt
* Street, of which I have met with no account. The site of these houses in
“ Jast was very lately granted away by the Corporation to a person ok
“ [Isaac Malortie, Esq.] who has built some [three] dwelling-houses
“there, which he calls York Buildings: the houses fronting the
“ [East] street stand upon the alms-house ground. The condition of
* this grant was that he should build other alms-houses, which he did
“on part of the ground belonging to those at St. Mary’s”—a rent
of forty shillings per annum for the old site in East Street being also
secured by the Corporation for the benefit of the inmates,

The new houses built by Malortie, five in number, thus added Malortie’s
to the former two, were taken possession of by the Corporation in Eee
October 1768. Nos. 1 and 2 were allotted to the poor of Holy-
rood, Nos. 3 and 5 to All Saints’, and No. 4 to St. Lawrence’s, accord-
ing to the order in which the old houses had been appropriated; the
parish officers attending and accepting the keys of their respective
houses from the mayor, and acknowledging themselves and their
several poor to be tenants at will of the Corporation.

The allotment to particular parishes came in time to be disregarded.

In 1830 the site of the alms-houses being required for the purposes All re-
of the workhouse, the guardians of the poor offered to purchase and Gove? ©°
convey to the Corporation a piece of land in Grove Street, together Street.

 

1 Date of bond by Corporation for payment of L, Sendy’s gift, April 30, 1565.
2 Dr. Speed, Journal, and Liber Niger, fol. 104.
Provisions
of the
Guild.

Legislation
and town
action,

294 ALMS-HOUSES.

 

with seven tenements which they would erect on it, in lieu of the old
alms-houses ; and in September 1831 the town seal was affixed to a
deed of exchange, the seven houses having been duly erected. Malor-
tie’s houses were then removed, but Butler’s—the pest-house, as it was
called—which had been marked for destruction in 1773, existed till
about 1865. It had been some years previously occupied by a poor
burgess, who received a moiety of Sendy’s gift, together with an
annual rent of £2, 2s. for a portion of the garden which had
been built over for workhouse purposes, and fifteen shillings from
Malortie’s rent above described. An ancient stone bearing the shield
of the town and a merchant’s mark, with the founder’s initials, R. B.,
and the date 1565, removed from the old buildings, is stili to be seen
between the first and second of the Grove Street alms-houses. The
seven houses consist each of two rooms, and are appropriated to four-
teen occupants. They are under the management of the borough
charity trustees,

Section I].—Care of the Poor.

By the ancient ordinances of the Guild Merchant doles were provided
for the sick and poor of the place when and where the Guild should be
sitting in the quaint but usual form of so much ale (Ord. 4) ; forfeits
and alms were also awarded to the poor on other occasions (Ord. 7), and
members of the Guild were to be assisted in poverty (Ord. 22). These
regulations belong probably to the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Later on we find the ‘townys almys’ settled on a plan, and lists were
kept of the weekly recipients of charity. Thus in the steward’s book
of 1441 we have ‘a remembraunce of the almys (#4, 28. 1d.) the
whych the town yewyth every weke to pore men and women;?’ then
follow the details.

The town books, of course, bear the impress of public opinion as it
gradually took shape in reference to the care of the poor. By statute of
1349 (23 Ed. ITI. c. 7) the giving of alms to sturdy beggars had been
strictly forbidden ; and by statutes of 1495 (11 Hen. VII.c.2) and 1503-4
(19 Hen. VII. c. 12) those who could not dig and were not ashamed
to beg were sent for that purpose to their native places or to their last
settlements. Under this system we come across fines levied on those
who lodged ‘ valiaunt beggers ;’ and in 1527 the town took to shaving
the rogues; thus, ‘to iiij berbors for cuttyng of vacabundes here short,
ij". There must have been heavy work to employ four barbers, but on
the other hand the price does not seem excessive. Indigenous beggars
had long been permitted by law within certain limits; and about
1529 the town provided sixty-four liveries for its beggars, ‘ because
CARE OF POOR. 295

 

they should be knowen from straunge beggers.”1 This order probably
gives the number of mendicants authorised at that time, when the
population of the borough was under 4000. In another order about
this period we find the names of thirteen who were admitted to beg
every day, and of seven who were allowed the privilege only once a
week, Over all these a controller of beggars was appointed, for whose
adornment a scutcheon of silver gilt was provided, the other beggars
wearing theirs of tin.2 A few years later we find the ‘master of
beggars’ receiving his fee of 6s. 8d. by the year.8 The Act of 1531
(22 Hen. VIII.c. 12), under which justices might assign to poor people
districts in which to beg, was duly proclaimed in the town; for those
who transgressed these limits the stocks were in readiness above Bar.

But the town tried to improve the case of its poor by direct regula- Care of the
tions, some of which are sufficiently curious. In 1550 it was enacted as
that no one ‘of the degree of a baylly of the town’ should purchase
any wood or coal between November 1 and March 25, except what had
been brought by water, in order that the poor people might have the
fuel which came into the town by carts and get it the cheaper. Brewers
and bakers were subjected to a similar restriction in their procuring
fuel for the same reason. About this time collectors for the poor were Collectors.
appointed under statute of 1535-36 (27 Hen. VIII. c. 25, ss. 4, 13)
to solicit weekly contributions from all householders, the obligation to
give something being imperative, the amount being left to discretion.
This was further extended by statute of 1562-63 (5 Eliz. c. 3) ; while
a later Act, that of 1572 (14 Eliz. c. 5, s. 16), gave the justices
a power of assessment on the inhabitants for the relief of the poor, and
dealt with the ‘ vagrom men’ in a summary fashion; the Jong list of
vagabonds including minstrels not belonging to any baron of the realm,
and scholars of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, who went
about begging without authority under seal of those Universities. ‘his
last gives a glimpse of the state of our medieval seats of learning when
youths of all classes flocked to them, for whose support various allow-
ances were tolerated and provided by public opinion. Thus in 1579
‘John Knightlie, scholard of the universitie of Cambridge, came into
this towne out of France, and was licensed by Robert Knaplock, maior, License to
to departe hence to the Universitie of Cambridge, and by the waye to °°
get service, . . . and also to aske the charitie of good people as well in
churches as clsewher towards his reliefe and comfort.’ §

 

1 MS. temp. T. Overey, sub annis, 2 Boke of Remembrances, fol, 3.4.

3 Steward’s Books, 1540.

* Court Leet Book, 1550. A century later the town devoted the profits
from brewers’ licenses to the support of the poor (Journal, September 1659).

5 Liber Notationum, August 9, 1575.
Appren-
ticing.

Charity
Funds.

296 CARE OF POOR.

 

Twenty years later the dawn of the present poor-law system broke
with the 43 Eliz. cap. 2, 1601; and we find the town apprenticing
lads to the age of twenty-four years, as they were empowered under
the statute: they assigned children to be brought up in respectable
families at a fixed rate: they parcelled out the aged poor among those
who could and would take them: they kept lists of needy people, to
whom they allowed threepence or fourpence a week, or sixpence or
eightpence monthly. They permitted tradesmen to set up in the town
on the understanding that they should take one or more of the town’s
children, Thus ‘Thomas Furlye, shoemaker, is ordered to seek out some
boye or maide with whome the towne is charged, and soe he shalbe
allowed to sett upp his trade.’ Furlye had then to compound with the
corporation of shoemakers, who were desired to make the terms easy
for him.! But the town was often in ‘ the position of having so many
children that it didn’t know what to do.” On one of these occasions,
the clothiers came forward, and offered to gather in the youngsters
who were begging for want of work, and to employ them instead of
strangers. This was welcomed as a ‘great ease and benefit to the
town ;’ it was therefore ordered that all the able-bodied should be
compelled to work for the clothiers or be punished.”

The charity funds collected in the different churches at this time
(1608) were administered under the direction of the Corporation, the
mayor giving his receipt to the churchwardens. The amount gathered
in each parish weekly at the church doors was husbanded in the chest be-
longing to each in the Audit-house, and applicable under the supervision
of the Corporation to the poor within its own limits in the first instance.
On one occasion, October 1648, the mayor not being satisfied with the
amount gathered from Holy Rood, a wealthy parish, the collectors
were directed to stand at the church door ‘as well on Thursdays and
att other church solemnityes as on ye Sabboathes to collect ye almes
of ye congregation.’ Several instances occur of churchwardens being
in contempt, and incurring fine for not rendering their accounts to the
town with punctuality: thus one of the wardens of All Saints’ in 1610.
The same year the wardens of All Saints’, St. Michael’s, and St. John’s
were warned to make collections for their parish ‘ plumps ’—pumps—
notice being given thereof by the clergy in the churches. In July
1625, every Wednesday being now kept as a fast day, it was ordered
that two men should in every parish during divine service or sermon
collect alms for the poor, to be distributed as the House should direct.
In 1644 one of the wardens of St. Mary’s had been in prison for

 

1 Journal, November—December 1608.
2 Ibid., January 1614.
WORKHOUSE. 297

 

refusing to render his account in proper form. Orders were made also
on the parishes by the mayor and justices for relief to poor persons,
travellers, and others. Under 1716 we find the vestry of St. Lawrence
appointing arbitrators for adjusting with other parishes the quota or
charge of the poor made on the parish by order of the justices,

The foundation of the workhouse was suggested or accelerated by a Te Wee
bequest of John Major, who by his will, bearing date February 20, :
1629-30, directed his executors to bestow £200 for ‘ building a house
of twelve rooms’ for the habitation of poor people, or otherwise for
setting them to work and maintaining them in labour.t From an
agreement between the Corporation and Richard Major, the executor
of the above John Major, made in 1630, it appears to have been deter-
mined that the Corporation should provide the house, and that Major’s
gift should be devoted to the purchase of land for its endowment.
This gift, however, was not enjoyed (see below) for some years.

In 1632, the town having provided the premises, John Harris was

made governor of the workhouse, and covenanted? to keep within the
house twenty children, who, with himself, formed the body corporate,
stipulating that he should have ‘noe broken or diseased beastly boye,
w shall not first bee cured or reformed, putt into the body of the
house, nor any under the age of nine yeares, unles with his consent,’
he to find the inmates in meat, drink, apparel, and medicine, and to
have the benefit of their labour until, with the consent of the over-
seers, they should severally be apprenticed. At their entrance the
town found tools for their work, bedding and clothing, and on their
leaving for apprenticeship, provided them with one good suit for work-
days and another for Sundays.

The governor’s duties were further to teach some forty boys and
girls to ‘make bonelace, knitt, or to carde or spinne eyther in the
greate tourne or the small, as hee in his discretion shall thincke fitt;’
he was also to catechise them twice a week, ‘ soe yt exceede not one houre
at one tyme.’ In the case of work from the clothiers growing scant,
the town was to provide wool, hemp, flax, &c. The hours for those
who came to the house for work were from seven till eleven, when
they went home to dinner and returned at twelve, leaving work at six
in the winter and seven in the summer. The governor was further to House of
keep in a house of correction on the premises such idle vagrant persons, aa
not exceeding twenty in number, as the justices should commit to be
punished and kept at work ; and the town-crier was to officiate upon
their persons as often as need required.

 

1 Deed reciting will, June 4, 1673.
2 Journal 1632, f. 239, b.
298 ST, JOHN’S HOSPITAL.

 

At the end of 1633 Harris received his dismissal, and Nicholas
Newbye, clothier, was elected at a salary of £30 per annum, when
the establishment was reduced to ten boys in the house. In the latter
half of the century the fabric was reported as becoming ruinous,

St. John’s when it experienced a revival by its transformation into St. John’s
Pelee Hospital in 1673. This hospital was due to the recovery by the town,
under an order of Chancery, dated 3d May 1665, of the before-
mentioned legacy of John Major, together with the accumulation
of interest, making in all £728, from Major John Dunch? of Baddesley,
the heir and representative of John Major. By indenture between the
Corporation, Major Dunch, and John Steptoe, with six poor boys,
dated June 4, 1673, it was witnessed that the Corporation had erected,
founded, and established a messuage now in their possession in French
Street, within the parish of St. John, ‘for an hospital for poor and
impotent people;’ and according to the statutes in such case pro-
vided, had incorporated the said John Steptoe and six poor boys by the
name of the ‘warden and poor children of the Hospital of St. John
Baptist,’ founded by the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses, and by John
Major, Esq. ; the common seal of the hospital to bear the crest and
arms of the town, together with those of John Major. The Corpora-
tion were from time to time to appoint the warden and fill up other
vacancies, but Major Dunch and his heirs were secured the privilege
of placing one poor boy to be taught and apprenticed by the Corpora-
tion as the other boys, but on whom an extra £4 per annum should
be expended from the income of the hospital. The visitation of the
house was vested in a body of the Corporation, and in Major Dunch
and his heirs as representing the co-founder; and its government was
placed under such orders as should be made by the founders or visitors.
The hospital was further to be used as a workhouse for the employment
of other poor people besides the six children, as the visitors should direct.

The Corporation then by another indenture, dated August 20, 1673,
in consideration of the above sum paid them by Major Dunch, granted
and confirmed an annuity of £40 per annum, issuing out of certain
specified ]ands, to be paid yearly to the warden and poor children for
the above purposes.

St. John’s Hospital stood on the site of the recent theatre in French
Street. The buildings had a frontage of 24 feet with a depth of 63
feet, and, as described in the deed, were fully of the capacity originally

named by John Major.

 

1 Court Leet Book, 1668.
2 Deed of June 4, 1673; also Process detailed in 13 Geo. III., cap. 50

(1773).
ST, JOHN'S HOSPITAL. 299

 

In November 1771 the scheme for uniting the parishes of the a
borough into one poor-law district was entertained; and as it was for poor-
considered that the Hospital of St. John, with its endowment of £40 uErpinaes.
per annum, would prove an eligible receptacle for the poor, the consent
of Major Dunch’s representative was sought, and a petition to Parlia-
ment drawn up and sealed in January 1773, for the purpose of uniting
the parishes and converting the hospital as proposed. The Act which
resulted (13 Geo. III. cap. 50, 1773) took effect from 24th June the
same year, uniting the parishes of the town and county of the town,
and forming a corporation of guardians, to consist of the mayor,
bailiffs, recorder, three senior aldermen, the resident justices of the
peace, and other eighteen of the most discreet inhabitants, four from
each of the parishes of Holy Rood, St. Michael, and All Saints, and
two from each of the parishes of St. Lawrence, St. John, and St.
Mary.

The hospital, which is described as a spacious building, capable of
receiving the general poor of the town—we have seen its dimensions—
together with the rent-charge of #40 per annum payable to it, was
vested in the guardians for the purpose of a workhouse, without pre-
judice to the rights and interests of the ‘six poor boys’ for the time
being, who were to be taught, visited, and governed as before. By a
further clause in the Act the guardians were empowered to purchase
any other house in lieu of the hospital, to which the power and autho-
rities given by the Act in respect of the said hospital, the poor boys,
and the annuity should extend ; and in case of such new purchase, they
were enabled to sell St. John’s Hospital, and apply the money arising
from the sale towards the above purchase, and for other purposes of the
Act. It was thought better to take advantage of these powers and
erect new premises, when St. John’s Hospital was sold to William
Daman in 1775, realising the sum of #425. It was advertised for
sale again in June 1789, and eventually purchased for the theatre which
was built on its site.

The new poorhouse was erected on ground on the north side of St. Workhouse
Mary’s Churchyard, and the guardians obtained Jeave to remove % 777*
Butler’s almshouse, provided they built another ‘ pest-house’ of specified
dimensions * and fulfilled other conditions; but, for whatever reason,
the old house remained standing as we have seen, and the workhouse of
1774 was erected on the ground close by. The endowment of £40

 

1 Before 1763 for some years Bullhall had been used as a poorhouse, and in
that year the lease of it for the same purpose was renewed for seven years (Church-
wardens’ Accounts, St. Lawrence).

2 Journal, Sept. 1773.
New
Work-
house,
1866,

L, Sendy.

Alms-
houses,

W. Sendy.

Sir T.
White,

Wallop.

300 UNION WORKHOUSE.

from the hospital followed the new building, and continued to be applied
to the maintenance of the poor, but without respect to the original
charity. This union house was more than once enlarged, and latterly
became capable of accommodating 240 adults, 100 boys, and 110 girls,
But in 1866 a new workhouse on a larger scale was erected, on the
site of the former, at a cost of about £40,000, It has room for 500
paupers, exclusively of the large schools on the opposite side of the
street. The guardians are fifty-four in number, consisting of the
members of the Corporation as above, thirty-one borough magistrates,
and eighteen elected ratepayers, thus apportioned, showing the relative
change in the parishes; eight for St. Mary’s, four for All Saints’, two
each for St. Michael’s and Holy Rood, and one each for St. Lawrence’s
and St. John’s.
Section II].—Benefactions.

The municipal charities are managed by a body of trustees,! who
act under a scheme bearing date April 6, 1880.

Lawrence Sendy gave #20 (see above) to Butler’s almshouses ;
£2 per annum are still paid to the four occupants.

Almshouses—The sum of £2, 6s.is distributed annually among the
ten occupants of Malortie’s almshouses (see above), resulting from three
quit-rents of 15s. 4d. each, payable from a house in York Buildings and
two in East Street, the leases of which are granted by the charity
trustees.

William Sendy (October 1533) gave the Corporation £100 for pro-
curing a special quarterly sermon at St. Lawrence’s and distributing a
shilling apiece to fifty poor persons who should attend and be called
‘the fifty poor people of the town of Southampton.’ In lieu of this
the sum of £10 per annum is given to the Grammar School.

Sir Thomas Whites Benefaction, 1566.—Southampton is one of
the twenty-four towns which receives in rotation #104 per annum
derived from £2000 given by Sir Thomas White to the Corporation
of Bristol, on condition of their purchasing an estate for the support of
his charity, to be bestowed in loans of #25 each on poor tradesmen.
The benefaction was last received by Southampton in 1878. It is
now applied to the Grammar School.

William Wallop, Esq., gave by will (September 17, 1616) #100 as
a fund from which loans of £20 for five years should be made to poor
young men without interest (see under ‘ Steptoe’).

 

1 ] have to thank J. E. Le Feuvre, Esq., for much information respecting
the Southampton charities from official documents. The following account is
otherwise based on the reports of the Charity Commissioners, in which all that
is valuable in Dr, Speed’s short notice was included,
CHARITIES. 301

 

Lynch’s gift (now £210 stock), the accounts of which begin in Lynch,
1641, was for loans of #10 for ten years. It was probably derived
from William Lynch, alderman, whose coat of arms, removed from
his house in Simnel Street, and bearing the date 1579, is now to be
seen in the hall of the Hartley Institute, or from his son William Lynch
of St. Michael’s parish (see under ‘ Steptoe’).

John Steptoe, alderman, by will dated February 20, 1667, be- Steptoe.
queathed the inheritance of his Jands in the parishes of Fawley and
Milford to the Corporation in trust, that one-third part of the rents
therefrom every vear should be bestowed upon the poor, and that the
other two parts be lent to ‘ young beginners’ in the town in sums of
£10 to each for ten years without interest He also gave £100 to the
Corporation, from the yearly interest of which to pay forty shillings to
the rector of All Saints’ for preaching four sermons before the Corpora-
tion on the three Sundays before the 3d of March, and the fourth
on that day, after which to give a shilling apiece to sixty poor people.

The original lands at Fawley and Milford were exchanged for land

near Romsey in 1840; and this property, consisting of about 21 acres
at Mile End, Romsey, and a small farm of 38 acres at Highwood,
near Romsey, were sold September 30, 1880, realising about #3621.
The sum of #1207, one-third part of the above proceeds, has been
devoted to the general charities fund; and the remainder, together with
Wallop’s and Lynch’s gifts, united with Steptoe’s by a scheme under
the direction of the Court of Chancery, 1862, has been transferred
to the Grammar School; the sum of #1000 having been already
retained for lending in sums of #50 and under to young beginners in
trade,

John Cornish, alderman, who died in 1611, gave £100 for pro- Cornish.
viding seven poor persons, men and women, with a gown apiece each
year. The charity consists of £105, 10s. 10d. stock, the interest of
which is expended each Christmas in the way directed.

George Gollop or Gallop, by will dated April 22, 1650, gave £200 Gollop.
for providing each year a cloth gown of some sad colour to four men
and four women. The charity consists of £217, 19s. 8d. stock, the
interest of which is spent in the way directed at Christmas.

Catherine Reynolds gave by will to the Corporation the sum of Catherine
£50, received by them January 13, 1615, they having in the pre- ee
vious December covenanted with the Corporation of Sarum to pay one
shilling apiece to eighty poor people of Southampton each year on
the Feast of the Purification. In place of this, #4a year are now
paid to the Grammar School.

In October 1635 the Corporation received £20, the gift of Bridget Parkinson,
Parkinson, the interest to be distributed quarterly among the poor.
Rosse.

Delamotte.

Bradsell,

Jacomin.

Mill.

302 CHARITIES.

 

The charity consists of #21, 6s. stock, the interest of which, thirteen
shillings, is now paid to the Grammar School.

Alexander Rosse, clerk, by his will, proved in 1653, gave £50 to the
use of the master of the Grammar School, and £50 to the poor of All
Saints, from the interest of which latter sum ten shillings was to be
paid to the minister for preaching in All Saints’ Church each December
24, on St. Matthew v. 3. The whole of this charity (£3, 5s. 4d.) is
now devoted to the Grammar School.

Mrs. Delamotte gave to fifteen poor widows the yearly sum of £1, 10s.
This is now paid to the Grammar School. She also gave the yearly sum
of £1, 10s. to the vicar of Holy Rood, which goes in the way directed.

Mr. Bradsell gave to the vicar of Holy Rood #1, 4s. yearly. The
gift is still received.

Mr. Jacomin’s gift consisted of the yearly interest of £50 toa
hundred poor people. This gift (1, 128. 8d.) is now diverted to the
Grammar School.

Nathaniel Mill, by his will, proved December 10, 1638, gave yearly
for ever :—

To the poor of Holy Rood parish, 20s. to twenty poor people on

January Ist, and 20s. on July tst, . ‘ : : ‘ £2 0 0

To St. Michael’s, 20s. on February 21st, and 20s, on August
Sty 2 0 0
To St. Fane S, 15s. on March Ist, and 15s, on September Ist, I 10 oO
To St, Lawrence, ros, on April Ist, and Ios. on October Ist, I 0 0
2.00

To All Saints’, 20s. on May Ist, and 20s. on November Ist,
To St. Mary’s (within the liberties), 15s. on June Ist, and 15s.

on December Ist, . I 10
To yearly placing four apprentices to some trade at discretion of

mayor and assistants, £8 (with each 4os.); and to provide

each with a bible, prayer-book, and pen and nee

which should cost 10s., j 10 0 o
To the ministers of the town of Southampton fox reading evening

prayers, to be divided equally between them ; and in case

there should be no evening prayers, then the bequest to go

°

to repairs of Holy Rood Church, 5 4.0 0
To the lecture, and in case there ehawtd be no lecture on peel
days, then to the minister of Holy Rood, 2.0 0
To the repairs of Holy Rood Church, 2 0 0
To the master of the Free School, 4 2.0 0
To four people of Southampton, ae days before Christmas, four
gowns or coats of cloth, costing 16s. each, at the discretion
of the mayor and assistants, ‘ 3 4.0
To the minister of Jesus Chapel, near Itchen Rauvs 2.00
To the repair of Jesus Chapel, . I 0 Oo
To the poor of the parish of St. Mary, dwelling over the water at
Itchen Ferry, Ridgeway, Weston, &c., out of the liberties
of Southampton, at the discretion of the minister of Jesus
2.0.0

Chapel and the collectors for the time being,
To apoor person of St. Mary’s in Itchen Ferry, Ridgeway, Weston,
CHARITIES. 303

 

&c., a gown or coat to be given four days before Christmas
at the discretion of the minister of Jesus Chapel and the

collectors, . £0 16 0
To the poor of the parish af St. Lawrence, Winchester, to be
given on New Year’s Eve to twenty poor people, . Io oO

And he directed that all the said sums should be yearly paid for
ever out of his farm or manor of Woolston to the mayor
and three of the most ancient aldermen of Southampton
half-yearly, to be disposed of by them as above, And he
gave each of them a pair of gloves yearly for their wens

worth 5s. a pair, Io Oo
By a codicil to his will, bearing date April 20, 1636, he gave te
the poor people of the French Church ‘yearly for ever out

of his said lands, . ; ‘ ‘ és 5 s ; I 0 oO

 

£420 0

A deduction of £3, 17s. 6d. for land-tax is made, and the sum of
£38, 2s. 6d., the residue, is expended now as follows :—

To the Grammar School, i ; . £10 18 o
To the poor of the French Church, paid i in . December, a : o 18 2
To four people of Southampton four days before Christmas, four

gowns or coats of cloth, and one gown or coat to some

person in St. Mary’s extra, to be given by the minister of

Jesus Chapel, 3 hr 8
To St. Lawrence, Winchester, paid i in December, o 18 2
To minister of Testis Chapel for poor of St, Mary s extra, paid? in

December, é ‘ 116 4
To minister of Jesus Chapel, paid in "December, 116 4
To repairs of Jesus Chapel, paid in December, ‘ o 18 2
To the ministers, paid in December, for reading evening pray ers, 3 12 8
To the lecture, I16 4
To churchwardens of Holy Rood, for repairs, paid i in December, . 116 4
Transferred to Taunton’s School, December 1881, . ; : 10 o 4

Peter Seale, alderman, gave £100 for the apprenticing of poor Gift of
children. This gift was brought into the Audit-house on October Sec Bo
20, 1654, by Peter Seale, junior, after his father’s death. The interest
from the stock of this charity, £3, 6s. 2d., is now transferred to the
Taunton School.

Peter Seale, junior, gave the yearly sum of #5 for placing two Peter
poor children apprentices for seven or eight years, one to be of St, S°viu"
Lawrence’s parish if possible. This yearly sum of #5 is now paid to
the Taunton School.

Mrs, Avis Knowles gave by will £50 to the Corporation (received Knowles’
May 30, 1634) for apprenticing two town-born children yearly, The
annual interest on £52, 158. 5d. stock belonging to this gift, namely,

#1, ris. 8d., is now transferred to the Pannen ‘Behool,

Richard ‘eonivat, by his will, dated February 15, 1752, gave to Taunton,

the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses a Southampton £1400 on trust, to
Searle's
gift.

Knight’s
gift.

Freeman,

304 CIIARITIES.

 

pay from the interest thereof the yearly sum of £21 to the minister of
Holy Rood, on certain conditions (see under that church), and on
further trust to apply the residue of the interest in the relief of
decayed aldermen of the town or their widows; and failing such cases,
to allow the fund to accumulate till such cases should arise. By a
codicil to his will he left another £100, from the interest of which to
pay the town-clerk for keeping the accounts. The fund having been
increased by accumulation, the annual income of the charity is now
£140, appropriated as follows:—To the Taunton School, £21; to
decayed aldermen and widows, #115, 16s. 8d.; to the Taunton
School, £3, 38. 4d., the interest of the investment of the above £100.

For Taunton’s School see next chapter.

Richard Searle by his will in 1738 gave to Richard Taunton, Esq., or
the Corporation of Southampton, £30 for charitable purposes. By accu-
mulations this sum amounted in 1786 to £66, which was then taken by
the Corporation at 4 per cent. The charity now consists of £71, 118. 7d.
stock, the interest of which (#2, 3s.) is devoted to the charity fund.

Mr, Alderman Knight having partly rebuilt the cowherd’s house
on the Common, and made his improvements a free gift to the
Corporation, to whom the house belonged, it was ordered by the
Common Council (July 1762) that a clear rent of #6 per annum
should be paid to the Corporation by every cowherd for his house and
office, twenty shillings of this rent being applicable to the uses of the
Corporation, and the remaining £5 for distribution among the poor
of the six town parishes. In 1786 the Corporation not having obtained
the cowherd’s rent for some years, set aside from their chest the sum
of £115, the amount of twenty-three arrears, from 1762 to 1785, in
satisfaction of the charity. This sum they took at 4 per cent., paying
the interest as directed in the entry of 1762, together with the annual
rent of #5 in respect of the cowherd’s house. The charity now con-
sists of £125, 6s. gd. stock, the annual interest of which, together
with the rent of £5—in all £8, 15s. 2d.—is carried to the charity
fund, The charity fund is available for everything of a charitable
nature arising within the town and county of the town, without regard
to the parish in which the recipient may live.

William Freeman, by will dated April 6, 1780, gave to the Corpora-
tion £100 in trust, to pay five shillings annually to the town-clerk for
keeping the accounts of the trust, and to distribute the remainder of the
interest among poor people of the town, not receiving alms, who might
happen to be visited in their persons and families with sickness, or
should suffer from fire or other calamity, in portions of not less than
ten shillings in each case. The legacy was Jaid out in the purchase of
£172, os. 10d. 3 per cent. consols, producing £5, 3s. 2d. per annum.
CHARITIES. 305

 

The Corporation having taken this stock to other uses, though
always paying the interest as directed, and having similarly taken
the principals of Fifield’s and Sadleir’s gifts. (see below), they, by
indenture of January 11, 1825, granted to certain trustees a mortgage
for two thousand years on the Audit-house, with the open poultry
and butter market under it, together with the tolls of those markets,
and the shops and sheds on the west side of the Audit-house, by way
of securing the principals and interests of these several gifts. In
this way are secured the #100 from Freeman’s gift, together with
£5, 38. 2d., the dividend of the above stock (#172, os. Iod.), pre-
viously to its sale by the Corporation; the sum of #1300 from the
Fifield gift (see below), with its interest of £44, 4s.; and the sum of
£350 from Sadleir’s gift, with the yearly interest of £17, 10s—the
total principal £1750. The whole of Freeman’s gift, £5, 38. 2d.,
is carried to the charity fund.

Silena Fifield, by her will, dated December 8, 1769, gave to the Fifield.
Corporation £1100 in trust, for maintaining from the interest thereof
the tombs of her late brother and sister in the chapelyard of St. Mary,
near Southampton, and the rails round the same, under the supervision
of the mayor and the rector of St. Mary’s, who were to receive respec-
tively £1 and 5s. for their trouble on November 1; and on further
trust to lay out the rest of the interest on the same day in clothing for
poor people not receiving regular parish relief. The testatrix further
gave £200 in trust for a distribution of coals annually among the
pensioners of God’s House; and in February 1773 her executors
transferred to the Corporation the sum of #1473, 6s. 8d. 3 per cent.
consols in satisfaction of the two legacies. This stock was in April
the same year sold out as above (under Freeman’s), the principal and
interest being subsequently secured by the mortgage of January 11,
1825. The income of Fifield’s charity, #44, 4s., is expended in the
following manner: To the poor of Holy Rood, St. Michael’s, and All
Saints parishes, #9, os. 6d. each; to the parishes of St. John, St.
Lawrence, and St. Mary, £3, os. 2d.; to the poor of God’s House,
£6, 16s.; to the mayor, £1, Is.; to the rector of St. Mary’s, 5s.

Richard Vernon Sadleir, who died March 2, 1810, gave to the Cor- Sadleir.
poration by will £350 in trust, to bestow on three poor men and four
poor widows or ancient maidens of good character the sum of 20s.
each on or shortly before Easter Eve, to enable them to celebrate the
Easter festival with pious joy, and to bestow 13s. 4d. each upon four
other men and three other women of the same description but inferior
grade for the same purpose at the same time. And he further directed
that an annual sermon should be preached in the several churches in

rotation on ‘cruelty to animals,’ and that the minister so preaching
U
Pemerton.

Mercer.

Spinks,

Gibbons,

Bird.

306 CHARITIES.

 

should be requested to accept 20s. He further desired that #1 should
be given to the town-clerk for keeping the books of the charity, and that
the annual surplus of #1, 38. 4d. should accumulate against a national
reduction of interest. The mode of securing this gift and its interest
at 5 per cent. (217, tos.) has been stated above. The charity is
expended as directed, the £1 for keeping the accounts going to the
charity fund, out of which a fixed stipend is paid by the trustees to
their clerk in respect of the charities.

George Pemerton, as recited in a deed, March 24, 1632, gave to
the Corporation £150 under covenant to pay him #12 a year during
his life, and after his death to distribute to the poor of Southampton
£9 annually as the gift of George Pemerton. One moiety of this
gift (#4, 10s.) is distributed at Candlemas, the other (#4, 10s.) at
Christmas.

Paul Mercer gave to the Corporation by will the sum of £100
(received Nov. 1661), from the interest of which to pay 3 half-
yearly for ever to the poor of the French and English churches. Of
this bequest, amounting to £6 per annum, the sum of #2 half-yearly
is paid to the poor of the English churches, and £1 to the treasurer
of the French Church at Lady Day and Michaelmas.

Sarah Spinks gave the dividends of #270, 3s. 2d. stock, viz.,
#8, 2s, 2d., for clothing to the poor of St. Michael’s, not being
paupers, to be distributed on St. Thomas’s Day each year.

Sloane Gibbons of Southampton, who died February 18, 1826,
gave a benefaction to the pensioners of God’s House. It consists of
£693, 138. 4d. stock, from the dividend of which (#20, 16s.) one
shilling per week is paid to the pensioners, and #3 carried to the
charity fund.

Elizabeth Bird by her will, proved in 1820, gave £1200 three per
cent. consols to be under the guardianship of the Corporation and the
rector of All Saints’, to apply the interest, £36 per annum, to the
use of her servant during her life, and after her death to the following
purposes, viz., to six poor women of Southampton above the age of
sixty years, of the Church of England and of good repute, to be called
‘ the good churchwomen,’ and to be provided with and to wear on Sun-
days and other dress-days silver medals with a device and motto specified
by her will, £5 each; the rector of All Saints’ to appoint to every
fifth vacancy, and to receive £3, 3s. annually to provide for the women
a good dinner, the particulars of which are specified, every November 10,
at his own house or elsewhere ; five shillings to be given to the cook, two
shillings and sixpence to the waiter, and £1, Is. to the rector himself,
for his trouble in saying ‘ grace,’ and for his general advice and pro-
tection: the remaining interest to be expended in coals for the
CHARITIES. 307

 

women. By a further clause she gave another £200 in consideration
of income-tax, also to be laid out in coals. The sum of #140 was
sold out to discharge legacy duty, and from the interest of the remain-
ing stock the annuitants now receive £6, 6s. each.

Charles D’Aussey, who died October 1, 1781, gave by his will the p’aussey.
residue of his property to Francois Saluces, Anthony Isaacson, and
Thomas Guillaume, in trust, to apply part of it to the county hospital,
Winchester, part to the Humane Society for recovering persons appar-
ently drowned, and part to the relief of the poor of Southampton,
leaving to his executors the proportion and manner of distribution.
The trust money consists of £3600 three per cent. consols, from the
dividends of which, amounting to £108 per annum, Mr. D’Aussey’s
tomb at Holy Rood is kept in repair, the residue being expended in
annuities of £10 each to poor persons of Southampton, not under fifty
years of age, who have lived with credit and fallen into decay.

The gift of Charles Hilgrove Hammond (see ‘ Recorders’) consists of Hammond,
£700 stock, the dividend from which, #21, is appropriated to annui-
tants, as in the last charity. D’Aussey’s and Hammond’s gifts now
provide thirteen people with annuities of €10 each,

Mr. Robert Thorner, a member of an Independent congregation in Mr. Thor-
London, meeting in Girdler’s Hall, who had made a considerable”
fortune as a merchant, on becoming infirm retired from London to
Baddesley, near Southampton, bringing with him letters of commenda-
tion from the pastor and deacons of the London congregation, ad-
dressed to the Independent congregation in Southampton, of which
Mr. Robinson was pastor, and which at that time, or immediately
after, met on the present site of Above Bar Chapel. The letters of
commendation were dated July 17, 1688, and Mr. Thorner was ap-
pointed an elder at the organisation and settlement of the church in
August the same year. On the second anniversary of the above letters
of commendation, namely, on July 17, 1690, Mr. Thorner died! By
his will, dated May 31, 1690, after giving to the officers of the con-
gregation £200 towards maintaining a minister among them, and after
giving them in trust his remaining interest in the lease of the house
Above Bar, built and then used as a meeting-place for the congregation,
provided it should continue to be so used, and a legacy of #500 to
Harvard College, New England, he devised all his real estate, consist-
ing of a parcel of land with shops and stalls erected on it in Leaden-
hall Market, in the city of London, then Jet on lease for a term of
years till 1769 at the annual rent of £80, but of the estimated value
of £400 at the expiration of the lease, to Bennet Swayne of London,

 

1 Brief Records of the Chapel, by Rev. T, Adkins, pp. 47, 102, 129-132.
308 CHARITIES.

 

Isaac Watts of Southampton, Thomas Hollis of London, and John
Brackstone of Southampton, and their successors, upon trust, that
£10 per annum should be paid to the uses of the trustees themselves
for their trouble, after payment of which, and other legacies and his
funeral expenses, he directed that #20 per annum of the proceeds
during the lease should be employed towards maintaining a free school
in the parish of Litton, Dorset; and that further proceeds from the
same should be applied to apprenticing to mechanical labouring trades
poor children and youths of Litton, Dorchester, Southampton, and
Salisbury, for every child a £5 premium, and #5 to enable him to
set up at the end of his apprenticeship; and further, a certain portion
of the rent was to accumulate. After the expiration of the lease he
appointed £100 per annum to be employed as follows :—One-fourth
part to the Free School at Litton, and the other three-fourth parts to
the placing and setting up of children as above. The overplus rents
were again to accumulate, and the legacy to Harvard College to be
paid first ; after which the remainder was to be employed in building
alms-houses within the town and county of Southampton, for the
maintenance of poor widows, each widow being allowed two shillings
per week and her house-room, such alms-houses being provided when
a convenient sum of money should be raised by the management of
the property as before said, and being from time to time increased in
number for ever, as monies should arise in the same way out of the
lands.

Until the expiration of the original lease at Lady Day 1769 the work
of the charity was limited ; after that the trustees improved the estate,
and after making the payments directed in the will and paying the
legacy to Harvard College, they were enabled by accumulations to pur-
chase in 1787, for £450, a site in the parish of All Saints’, Above Bar,
for the purpose of the almshouses as directed, and the year following
to erect them.

The gross annual rent of the trust premises amounted in 1774 to
rather less than £400, in 1784 to about #500, in 1794 to about £520,
for many years previous to 1819 to rather above £530 per annum,
in 1819 to £829, 158.3; at the present time to over £1200 a year,

The alms-houses have been greatly increased since the original build-
ing, and are very commodiously arranged on three sides of a large
quadrangle of turf planted with ornamental trees and shrubs. Thev
are at present designed for forty-three poor widows, who each receive
58. per week, and are appointed by the trustees from the inhabitants of
the town and neighbourhood. The trustees also expend £100 a year
in the payment of apprentice fees and gifts for boys of the above four
places, £25 being spent in Southampton. There are four trustees,
CHARITIES. 309

 

who each personally appoints his successor during his life, or failing
this, the surviving trustees appoint.

The charity will be extended from time to time with the growth of
the funds.

SecTion [V.—Medical Charities.

Passing now to the medical charities: in March 1809 a Dispensary
for the poor was started under the supervision of Dr. Middleton, the
Corporation subscribing #5, 5s. annually.

The present Dispensary, formerly held at 146 High Street, was
established in 1823, pursuant on a meeting held the previous Novem-
ber under J. R. Keele, Esq., the mayor. The old Humane Society
was united with the Dispensary in 1826. The Dispensary is now
located in a handsome new building next to the Taunton Schools.

On January 1, 1838, the Royal South Hants Infirmary was estab-
lished after the previous experiment on a small scale of a casualty
ward. The following dates will mark the growth of this valued insti-
tution. In 1844 the central building was completed at a cost of
£5080, 148. 6d. In 1851 the east wing was added at an outlay of
£1037, 1s.6d.; and the Bullar wing subsequently at a cost of £1467,
5s. Id., both from designs of Mr. Critchlow. In 1857 the chapel and
offices under were erected by Dr. Oke at a cost of £1330, from funds
intrusted to him for charitable purposes by Miss Elizabeth Dowling.
The Eyre Crabbe wing was added in 1867 at a cost of £3695, 178. 11d.
The total outlay on the buildings, garden, and land of the Infirmary
to the end of 1878 amounted to £17,394, 2s. This hospital has an
income from funded and other property of about £915 per annum,
and derives a large but fluctuating revenue from subscriptions, dona-
tions, legacies, &c. Its funds, however, are scarcely equal to the in-
creasing demands made on this charity.

The Nurses Institute provides a staff of nurses who attend in private
houses and also upon the sick poor.

St. Mary’s Cottage Hospital, North Front, was founded by Mrs. Black
in 1873, for the relief of those suffering from sore and ulcerated legs.

The Homeopathic Dispensary was established in 1873.

The Provident Maternity Society was founded in 1837.

A County Female Penitentiary was settled in the building adjoining
Trinity Church in 1828, in place of an older house of refuge which
had been formed in 1823. The Penitentiary has now been closed for
many years, and the property has been acquired by the vicar of Holy
Trinity for church purposes.

It seems needless to particularise the various smaller agencies of
public charity still at work.

A Charity Organisation Society was set on foot in 1875.

Medical
Charities.
1553:

CHAPTER VII.

EDUCATIONAL.
Secrion [I.—Zhe Grammar School.

Tris foundation was due in the first instance to the bequest of William
Capon, D.D.,! precentor of St. Mary’s, who by his will, dated July 31,
1550, and proved in the Court of Canterbury, October 11, 1550, by
his executors, John Capon,? Bishop of Salisbury, Christopher Robinson,
and William Breton, gave to the town of Southampton £100 towards
the erection and maintenance of a Grammar School there ; directing
that the mayor, recorder, and four of the ancients should have over-
sight of his bequest, which, in the manner specified, was to produce
10 per annum for the finding of a schoolmaster. And the mayor,
bailiffs, and burgesses were to enter into a bond in £100 to the mayor
and Corporation of Salisbury rightly to employ for the purposes of the
bequest the said #10, which otherwise was to be used by the mayor
and Corporation of Salisbury in charitable deeds for the health of the
donor’s soul.3

The school was accordingly founded under letters patent,* bearing
date 4th June (7 Ed. VI.) 1553, which set forth that, ‘at the humble
petition of the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses of the town and county
of Southampton, the king had granted that there should be ‘one
grammar school in the said town and county of Southampton,
which should be called the Free Grammar School of the mayor,
bailiffs, and burgesses of the said town and county of Southampton,
to endure for ever for the education and institution and instruction of
boys and youths in grammar.’ The foundation was to consist of one
master and an under-master or usher; and the mayor and bailiffs of
the town were made a body corporate, under the name of ‘The gover-
nors of the possessions, revenues, and goods of the Free Grammar
School of the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses of the town and county of

 

1 Also rector of North Stoneham in 1536.

2 John Capon, Abbot of Hyde from 1530 to 1538; consecrated Bishop of
Bangor in 1534; surrendered his abbey to the king in 1538, and in July 1539
was translated to the see of Salisbury. He died in 1557.

3 Report of Charity Commissioners, 1840.

# Dr. Speed gives the patent at greater length.
THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL. 3LI

 

Southampton,’ capable of receiving and holding lands, &c., not exceed-
ing the yearly value of #40, for the support of the master and under-
master. And the mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses were empowered to
make, with the advice of the bishop of the diocese, fit and wholesome
statutes for the government of the school, and to arrange all other
matters concerning it.

“What has been done in consequence of this patent will appear by
“ the following extracts from the journals. The same year that the
‘* school was established by charter as above! [Thomas Pace, of the
“town of Southampton, Esquire], Thomas Mille [of the same town,
“ gentleman], and William Breton [gentleman, one of the] executors
* of William? Capon, D.D., paid to the Corporation #100, being the
“legacy for which they were to pay £10 a year to the schoolmaster,
“and by way of security? for the payment they conveyed to the said
“executors [Jan. 20, 1554, 1 Mary] West Hall and its appurtenances
“ [together with three other specified tenements], and the parties
* above named ”’—for the maintenance of the school, and that the
boys to be taught therein might daily for ever pray for the soul of the
said William Capon—reconveyed “these tenements to the mayor and
“* bailiffs as governors of the school and its possessions.” The date of
this document is September 26, 1554. “It is plain both from the
‘‘ price paid and from the practice which immediately ensued, that
* these houses were only intended to be made security for the payment
“ of £10 per annum.”

The first master was Robert Knaplocke, who was in office in 1554-55)
receiving £3, 6s. 8d. for his board, and his ‘ wages’ of £10,

“In 1561 [25th Sept., 3 Eliz.] Thomas Diganson was chosen
“schoolmaster” at the above salary, with an allowance of sixpence per
head from town boys quarterly, and sixteenpence from country boys,
‘according to the order of Winchester.’

“Jn 1569 [1st Oct., 11 Eliz.] John Horlock was chosen,” salary
£20 per annum, and £6, 13s. 4d. for reading a divinity lecture once
a week.

Adrian Saravia, afterwards successively prebendary of Gloucester,
Canterbury, and Westminster, must have come into England earlier
than the received date;* he was master of the Grammar School in

 

1“ Liber Niger, f. 111.”

2 The name appears as Yon Capon in the document in Liber Niger, as
also in the original deed executed by Pace and Mille, still in the possession of
the Corporation. It is an error for W#léam, as the name occurs correctly in
subsequent clauses.

3 This is an zzderpretation of the deed ; there can be no doubt however of
its soundness ; the Charity Commissioners of 1840 took the same view,

4 He was in Southampton in 1570, perhaps before; see under ‘French Church,’

Masters.
312 THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

 

1576. Under February (18 Eliz.) that year the notice occurs: ‘ Paid
to Mr. Adrian (sic) for his charges and paiens in his tragedie,’ by
consent xx*’? In the next year, ‘Paid for ilij yardes of broade

cloth for a gowne for Mr. Adrian Saravia the schoolm™ at ix* the

arde “ xxxvj*??
y J

“In 1583 William Davisson [M.A., Queen’s College, Oxford] was
“ chosen schoolmaster [Dec. 2], to be put out at a year’s warning if
“the mayor and his brethren think fit; to have #20 a year salary,
“ and no further allowance for an usher.”

“Tn 1595 [Sept. 11] the mayor and his brethren appointed an
“ ysher [John Drake, B.A.], and assigned him £10 a year out of the
“ master’s salary.”

“In 1598 the schoolmaster was called before the mayor, &c.,
“ March 16, and warned to provide otherwise for himself by mid-
“ summer next, they being minded to furnish the place with a sufficient
“man.” John Drake afterwards became rector of All Saints’, and
together with Simon Pett (Holy Rood) received a mark of the town’s
favour in December 1610.

The next master was Mr. Bathe, who left on being beneficed
elsewhere.

“Tn 1601 [18th April] Nicholas Munn [clerk, late of London] was
“chosen, to have £20 a year; not to quit under a year’s notice,
“ but to be turned out at half a year’s warning.”

“Tn 1610-11 [March 22] Mr. Twiste was chosen,” wages as above.
In September 1612 a new Bible of the price of ten shillings was ordered
to be bought and chained in the Free School.

“In 1616 [April 22] Alexander Rosse, a Scottish man, was
“chosen, being recommended by the Earl of Hertford. N.B. in
“ 7654, this gentleman gave £’50 to the school, for which the Corpora-
“ tion agreed to pay £5 a year to the master out of the rent of the petty
“ customs.” This learned writer became rector of All Saints’, one of
the royal chaplains, and was presented by Charles I. to the vicarage
of Carisbrook. He died in 1653.

Mr. Thomas Parker, schoolmaster in Sir Thomas West’s house,
received the appointment on the resignation of Rosse, September 1,
1620, against the candidature of the usher of the school. The latter

 

1 Sir James Whitelocke in his Liber Famelicus, p, 12, about the same
period speaks of Mr. Mulcaster, the master of Merchant Taylors’ School, pre-
senting yearly ‘sum playes to the court, in whiche his scholers wear only actors,
and I one among them, and by that means taughte them good behaviour and
audacitye.’ Plays were acted in the Southampton School till a comparatively
late period.

2 Temp, T. Overey, sub annis.
THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

Go
_
Go

 

having procured letters from the Earl of Southampton in favour of his
election, which, luckily for Parker, arrived too late, the town, to do
the best under the circumstances, presented him with a consolatory
£5, which Mr. Rosse, who brought the letters, accepted in his behalf.

“a.p. 1624 [May 7] Mr. Thomas Wareham [M.A. Oxon.] was
“ chosen ” on the resignation of Parker, agreeing to give private notice
to the mayor of any intention to resign, and not to publish it abroad,
that a successor might ‘with conveniencye’ be provided. “The same
“year Edward Reynolds, Esq., left £20 for the benefit of the school-
“master. The Corporation took the money to pay the master 258. a
“ year.” Wareham left at Michaelmas 1654. His salary had been £10,
Capon’s gift, £10 Corporation foundation, and #1, 5s., Reynolds’
gift—#21, 58. per annum.

Mr. William Bernard was chosen October 16, 1664, on the same
salary. He was rector of Ash, Hants, and vicar of Holy Rood in or
before 1653, and so continued till his death, in 1666, at Eling, whither
he had retired in consequence of the plague in 1665, himself being in
broken health. His widow became the first wife of Dr. John Speed,
author of ‘Batt upon Batt” In 1653 he had been chosen registrar of
the parish of Holy Rood for marriages, births, and burials under the
Act of Parliament of August 24, 1653, and was sworn to his office by
William Horne, mayor. He resigned the school in November 1660.

“ a.p. [1660, Nov. 16] Mr. [Thomas] Butler [vicar of St. Michael’s]
“* was chosen.

“ a.D.1674-75[Feb. 13] ordered that Mr. Butler for his neglect of the
“* Free School shall have no more salary unless he amend. The same year
* TOct. 23], Mr. Butler not giving any satisfaction, the school was taken
“into the town’s hands; and the next year [March 23, 1674-75] Mr.
* Butler resigned.” Dr. Clutterbuck (St. Mary’s) had interceded for
him in January, but without effect beyond that of securing him on his
resignation a quarter’s salary in advance for his ‘ good report in the
town,’ June 1675.

“ About this time [Feb. 11, 1674-75] a set of statutes for the school
“© was sent under the episcopal seal of the Bishop of Winchester.”

Mr. Thomas Gubbs, elected September 28, 1666; the appointment
was evidently temporary. See last notice.

Mr. Joseph Clarke, B.A., on the resignation of Butler, July 1, 1675.

“Tn 1676 Mr. John Pinhorne [B.A. Balliol Coll.] was chosen”
[Aug. 30] in place of the last deceased, against the candidature of Mr.
Floyd or perhaps Lloyd, vicar of Holy Rood. To this gentleman his
pupil, Dr. Watts, expressed great obligations. Pinhorne was rector of
All Saints’, then vicar of Eling, where he died in 1714.

“In 1677 Dr, Edward Reynolds, Bishop of Norwich,” a native of
School
removed to
West Hall.

Old school
premises.

314 TIIE GRAMMAR SCHOOL.

 

the parish of Holy Rood, born in 1599, and brought up at the Gram-
mar school, from which he passed to Merton College, Oxford, “ gave
“ £50 [£100]! to the school, for which the Corporation agreed to pay
“ the master #5 a year.”

“Tn 1690-91 [March 6] Mr. Richard Pocock [B.C.L.] was chosen,”
in succession to Pinhorne. “This gentleman put the school on its pre-
“ sent [1760] footing. It had been kept before at a place called the Old
“ Free school, over against God’s House, where silk throwsters now work ;
“but in February 1694-95 Mr. Pocock’ entered into an agreement
“ with the Corporation to have West Hall for a schoolhouse,” with
permission to alter or rebuild, “ and with the old materials to build at
“ his own cost a house fit for thirty or forty boarders, and to have a
“ease for forty years.” The total number of scholars was not to
exceed one hundred. Eventually a lease (February 26, 1696) of the
premises was granted him for ninety-nine years, he having with the
assistance of a loan? from the Corporation and private subscriptions re-
built or adapted a portion of the old West Hall, producing a large and
regular three-storied house of nineteen rooms, with six windows in each
row, and a pedimented doorway in the middle bearing the benediction
over the portal, ‘Pax huic domui.’ A schoolroom of 40 by 35 feet was
built out behind.

On Pocock vacating the old premises in Winkle Street, which are
described ® as a large tenement or room with three lesser rooms over a
cellar in the street or Jane leading from the custom-house to God’s House
gate, they were leased out by the Corporation for seven years at £7 per
annum and two good fat capons. However, in April 1700 a certain Mrs.
Elizabeth Sambrooke came to the Audit-house demanding possession of
‘the loft formerly the schoolhouse near unto God’s House gate,’ as be-
longing to her as heir-at-law to John Caplen deceased, it having been
discontinued as a schoolroom by the space of four years and upwards.
The lady made good her claim, and in September the key was delivered
up to her.

Mr. Pocock retained the schoo] till his death; he was in charge of
All Saints’ in 1699-70, and in 1706 is still described as minister of that
church. His burial occurs in the Holy Rood register on November 8,

 

1 On September 28, 1677, it was ordered that the £100 to be received under
the Bishop of Norwich’s will, together with £100 to be received by bequest
of Alderman John Steptoe, should be paid over (as soon as received) to John
Kennell in discharge of his bond of £200 due from the town. On October 1 the
writings sealed by the town, and also by Mr. Pinhorne, were ordered to be sent
up to Mr. Denton in order to receiving the £100 given by Bishop Reynolds to
the Free School; the £100 when received was to be paid to Mr. Kennell as
formerly ordered (Journal).

2 Of £300, for which he was to pay £15. 3 Lease,
THE GRAMMAR SCHOOL, 315

 

1710. He was the father of Dr. Richard Pocock, Bishop of Meath,
the oriental traveller, who was born at Southampton in 1704. Besides
removing the school, he was founder of its library of about 240
volumes, among which is a Chaucer of 1542, bearing the autograph of
Bishop Hugh Latimer, a MS. of the Vulgate, and some good classics.

“Tn 1710 [Nov. 13] Rev. William Kingsman [M.A.] was elected
“on Mr. Pocock’s death on the terms of his lease ;” he was! vicar of
St. Michael’s from 1703 till his death in 1736; he was buried at
St. John’s on May 22.

“In 1736 [June 17] Rev. William Scott [of Petersfield] was
“chosen on the death of Kingsman.” In August 1738 it was agreed
by the Common Council that the school fee for boys born in the town
should be twenty shillings a year, with an extra payment of five
shillings to the master, two shillings and sixpence to the usher, and
one shilling to the prepositors. Mr. Scott was rector of All Saints’.

* In 1767 [May 20] Rev. Isaac Hodgson was chosen on the death
“ of Mr. Scott. The Corporation put the house in repair and granted
“him a lease with a repairing covenant, remitting the £15 a year
“ mentioned in the contract with Mr. Pocock, agreeing to pay him a
“ salary of £30 a year.”

The Rev. Richard Mant, M.A., master of New College School, was
appointed, in the place of Hodgson deceased, on December 21, 1770;
his lease of ninety-nine years bearing date that day. In May 1773
the Corporation gave their sanction to raising the terms to ten shillings
quarterly for town boys, with twelve shillings entrance fee, as pre-
scribed by the old statutes, recommending the change to the Bishop.
In 1777 and 1778 various enlargements were carried out. Mant’s
reputation kept his school full; and according to a local chronicler it
had become ‘one of the most genteel seminaries of learning in the
country.2. Mr. Mant was rector of Fonthill Bishops, Wilts, and of
Ashley, Hants; he was presented to All Saints’ in 1793, and proceeded
D.D. the same year, resigning the school in 1795. He was father of
the well-known Bishop of Down and Connor, who was born in 1776.

Rev. George Whittaker, M.A., master of a school at Alresford,
was appointed May 8, 1795. He carried out some improvements in
the building, and was a successful master, but, unlike his predecessor,
of considerable severity. He was the author or editor of several good
school-books. He resigned in 1813.

Rev. Charles Tapp Griffith, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College,

 

1 William Kingsman was instituted to She-aeld English on presentation of
Edward Keele, patron for that turn, on Octobe 7, 1708, and instituted to West
Titherley, February 4, 1708-9.
;

RISvatetavaaerey

et eT TOs PP ieee a of etladddddte ie
eae retin lined opted Yt eat ah 2 ae
eee i tA

 

 

 

So

Seabird
rin

Perey

 

Fy
pa lt Babe
er paren
ss eae fy
pierre re a
Reel ce ear lstn wri ieiedllneont tole ears irr
aa pe nperanbetdenbinitabin te Tre epee er
Cnr Pe ees 7
inne st pine’
=: Peres Sars Serpe Taare ea erty
nen Dell tetra bettas Pore
eine trate pert ~
clei pellet tet eet

 

 

 

 

 

 

pia eon
ee

 

eraser tas

Reems
eae eed

 

 

 

 

ae eae ep claret etat rao
an a

 

 

mnt nba nace ac meres

ont pain ee ela ms A
SE TE ane Te a Sana

  

ptr RY
Crate Pests