Hastings

The loss of local records means that it is difficult to chart events at Hastings and to assess the state of the town’s economy in this period. It may be confidently stated, however, that the town’s long-term decline had continued. Initially one of the foremost of the Cinque Ports, by the late fourteenth century Hastings was the furthest decayed of them, owing to the early silting-up of its harbour. Whereas in the past Hastings’ contribution of ship-service to the Crown had amounted to 21 vessels, a tripartite agreement made in 1392 between the three western Ports (Hastings, Rye and Winchelsea), reveals its relative unimportance by that date. Ship-service was henceforth to be discharged in the proportion of five ships from Hastings, the same number from Rye, and ten from Winchelsea. Together, these three Sussex Ports were liable for one-third of the costs of any initiative on behalf of all the Cinque Ports, and this liability was shared between them in the same proportions: Hastings and Rye were each to answer for a quarter, and Winchelsea for a half.1 K.M.E. Murray, Constitutional Hist. Cinque Ports, 56-57. A further diminution in Hastings’ importance followed in Henry VI’s reign. When vessels were needed to transport the duke of York’s army to Normandy for a new military offensive in the spring of 1436, Hastings was required to provide just three; and for the major sea-keeping force established in the Parliament of 1442 it was put down to supply just one pinnace, in comparison to Winchelsea’s two much more substantial barges.2 White and Black Bks. of Cinque Ports (Kent Rec. Ser. xix), 8; PROME, xi. 373-5.

The extent of coastal erosion at Hastings at that time is suggested by the statement recorded in Bishop Praty’s register in 1440 that its parishes of St. Andrew, St. Leonard, St. Michael and St. Margaret had all been destroyed by the sea. The old part of the town, which stood sea-ward of the present streets, had been lost to inundations, and the focus of habitation moved to the area around All Saints Church, which was re-built and called the ‘new church’ in 1436.3 Suss. Arch. Collns. xiv. 70. Nevertheless, Hastings retained its prominence as a fishing port and in common with the other Cinque Ports every year it sent out a fleet of boats to the herring fishery in the North Sea. It continued to take a leading role in supplying the royal household with fish.4 e.g. CPR, 1461-7, p. 125; VCH Suss. ii. 264-7.

The castle at Hastings, by the fifteenth century in a ruinous condition and partly uninhabitable, had been granted by Henry IV along with the lordship, honour and rape of Hastings to Ralph Neville, earl of Westmorland, for term of his life, and then in reversion to Sir John Pelham*, to hold in tail. Pelham entered into possession on the earl’s death in 1425, and granted the whole of this estate to his illegitimate son, another Sir John. In turn, the latter conceded his title to (Sir) Thomas Hoo I* (created Lord Hoo and Hastings in 1448). The constraints of Lord Hoo’s debts and the upheavals of the civil war forced his half-brother and heir-male, the lawyer Thomas Hoo II*, to relinquish the lordship to Sir William Hastings, whom Edward IV elevated as Lord Hastings at the beginning of his reign.5 CPR, 1408-13, p. 457; 1441-6, p. 350; 1461-7, pp. 137-8; The Commons 1386-1421, iv. 39-43. The King also granted to his friend the advowson of the deanery and prebends of the royal chapel within the castle. This, the college of St. Mary, founded shortly after the Conquest, had pertained to the Crown since the late thirteenth century.6 It was free from the jurisdiction of ordinaries until 1446, when the bp. of Chichester was granted the right of visitation: CChR, vi. 74. Although the college at Hastings was far less prestigious than the great colleges of St. Stephen at Westminster and St. George at Windsor, the canonries there were used to reward the Crown’s servants throughout Henry VI’s reign, and this provided an unexpected link between Hastings and the Parliaments of the period, for two of the deans were also appointed to the office of clerk of the Parliaments: William Prestwick in 1424 and John Faukes in 1447.7 The link continued, for Baldwin Hyde, clerk of the Parl. of 1470-1, had been granted a canonry at Hastings: CPR, 1436-41, pp. 22, 56; 1452-61, pp. 434, 481, 576; H. Kleineke and E.C. Roger, ‘Baldwin Hyde, Clerk of the Parliaments’, Parlty. Hist. xxxiii. 501-10. In this context it should be remarked that Prestwick and Faukes mixed socially with the Portsmen: they headed the list of recipients of the moveable goods of John Parker I in 1430; and John Stoughton named Faukes among the feoffees of his manor in Lincolnshire.8 CCR, 1429-35, p. 44; 1447-54, p. 363.

The names of both of Hastings’ representatives are recorded for 17 of the Parliaments of Henry VI’s reign, and of one of them in that of 1445. Gaps remain for the Parliament of 1439, and more seriously for the consecutive assemblies of 1455, 1459 and 1460. Altogether, there were 18 known parliamentary barons, of whom all but two were resident in Hastings. Certain of this group of 16 residents were related: for instance John Carpenter III may have been the son of Thomas Carpenter, and John Parker III the son of John I. For the most part, their occupations are not recorded, although it is likely that the majority owed the bulk of their income to trade or fishing. John Carpenter had been apprenticed to a member of the Fishmongers’ Company of London, and John Archer I was described as a ‘merchant’. That Archer was also called ‘yeoman’ indicates that he derived part of his livelihood from agriculture, and, indeed, he and 14 other barons are known to have owned parcels of land in the countryside near Hastings where, as Portsmen, they could claim exemption from parliamentary tenths and fifteenths. Nevertheless, none of the 16 resident barons were landowners on any significant scale. Three of them were lawyers by training: Richard Huntingdon, who had links with the Sussex gentry; Thomas Vestynden, a fellow of Lincoln’s Inn who served both Hastings and Winchelsea as their common clerk; and John Westbourne, occasionally an attorney in the King’s bench who was later employed as steward on the younger Sir John Pelham’s estates. These three occupied a larger proportion of seats in Parliament than their numbers warranted: out of the 35 seats recorded, nine were filled by men of law (principally Huntingdon, who dominated the representation of Hastings in the 1420s).

The two MPs who were not resident in Hastings on a regular basis were John Tamworth (returned in 1435 and 1445) and John Stoughton (in 1447). They differed in several respects. Even if he did not actually live at Hastings Tamworth must have been a familiar figure there. A shipowner and merchant, he had earlier sat in the Commons for another of the Cinque Ports, Winchelsea, and besides being a Portsman of that place, he owned land at Battle and elsewhere near Hastings. Furthermore, when elected to both his Parliaments for Hastings he was holding office as King’s bailiff of the Port. By contrast, Stoughton was an outsider, whose inherited lands were located as far away as Lincolnshire (where he held the manor of Hacconby as a tenant-in-chief of the King), and there is little evidence that he had any significant interests in Sussex. His return to Parliament in 1447 was owed primarily to his employment in the royal household as the official in charge of the major purchasing department, and perhaps also to his links with the local fishing industry: his brother, Thomas Stoughton*, the purveyor of fish for the Household, had recently failed in an attempt to secure the office of bailiff of Hastings for life.

There was a remarkable continuity of representation at Hastings in the years up to 1437. At least one of the MPs in each of the ten Parliaments from 1420 to 1431 had been re-elected after serving in the immediately preceding assembly, and this happened again in 1433 and 1435. Furthermore, both of those elected in December 1421 and 1423 were returned again to the succeeding Parliaments of 1422 and 1425. This continuity was provided by Hastings’ preference for three men: Richard Huntingdon, who sat for the Port in at least nine Parliaments between 1413 and 1429, including as many as seven in a row from 1421 to 1429; William Courthope, returned to six Parliaments altogether, including the four consecutive assemblies of 1420-2; and John Parker I, also a veteran of six Parliaments, who sat in the three which met between 1432 and 1435. After 1442 there was a marked change in the pattern of representation. In the seven Parliaments of 1442 to 1453 for which the names of Hastings’ Members are known, ten out of the 13 barons appear to have been newcomers to the Commons, and in four of these Parliaments Hastings was seemingly represented entirely by novices. The reasons for this change (which is noticeable in many other constituencies as well as Hastings), are complex, but even if it suggests a growing reluctance on the part of the Portsmen to serve in Parliament this reluctance did not lead them to hand over their representation to outsiders.

The loss of the medieval records of Hastings makes it difficult to determine the extent of the MPs’ involvement in the Port’s administration. The names of the 12 jurats, nominated by the bailiff every year, are lost and only chance survivals reveal that Thomas Vestynden served as the common clerk (and was perhaps in office at the time of his elections in 1449 and 1453). Whereas at the close of the thirteenth century the Ports of Dover, Sandwich, Rye and Winchelsea had each begun to elect a mayor, who ruled concurrently with a bailiff appointed by the Crown, Hastings never had a mayor, and its bailiff, while technically acting as the King’s representative, did not owe his appointment to the central government. In fact, the bailiff was elected annually by a majority vote of the men of the Port (both freemen and commoners) assembled at their hundred place on the Sunday after Hock Day (the third Sunday after Easter).9 Add. 28530, ff. 7-15. Hastings possessed no charter expressly granting the townspeople the right to elect their bailiff in this way, but when their authority was challenged in 1445 (after Thomas Stoughton, the royal purveyor of fish, had induced Henry VI to appoint him bailiff of Hastings for life), John Tamworth, the locally-elected bailiff, based his case on the immemorial custom of the town, and the royal justices eventually allowed this claim as founded on prescription. Stoughton’s letters were revoked as contrary to the liberties of the Port.10 CPR, 1441-6, pp. 358, 427-8.

Few of the names of the bailiffs chosen before 1432 are now known, but all of those serving after that date are recorded, revealing that each of the 13 bailiffs of the period 1432 to 1464 were elected to Parliament at some point in their careers. Eleven of our 18 MPs are known to have officiated as bailiff, at least four of them doing so before they entered the Commons for the first time. Since by this period it had become established practice for the bailiff to serve for two consecutive years, it is not surprising to find that most of the 11 held office for more than one term. Indeed, John Cobbey did so for as many as eight. Perhaps more unexpected is the finding that the Portsmen were often prepared to send their current bailiff to Parliament, thus permitting him to neglect his duties in the locality. The bailiff was returned in 1431 (Courthope), 1433 (Rede), 1435 (Tamworth), 1437 (Goldyng), 1445 (Tamworth again), 1447 (Cobbey), and November 1449 (Clyve).

Besides acting as representatives for Hastings in the Commons, at least 15 of the 18 MPs did likewise at Brodhulls of the Cinque Ports, which met at New Romney. Sometimes, as in the cases of John Rede in 1434 and John Carpenter in 1442, they reported to the assembled delegates the events of the Parliaments they had recently attended. Hastings defaulted when required to send delegates to a special Brodhull in September 1444, but the record does not make clear whether the Port was fined the huge sum of £20 as stipulated in an ‘olde evydence’, or 20s., as appeared in the ‘great register’.11 White and Black Bks. 19. The latter seems more likely. Another task which fell to the more prominent men of Hastings was that of acting as a bailiff from the Ports at the annual herring fair at Yarmouth. Hastings was required to send a bailiff to the fair every autumn, whereas the other Sussex Ports, Winchelsea and Rye, took turns to do so, and this placed an additional burden on its Portsmen. Although 11 of the 18 MPs served in this way in the course of their careers, and some of them showed no reluctance to sail to Yarmouth (for example, John Cobbey went five times), Hastings sometimes found it difficult to find willing and suitable men for the office. On occasion its nominee was rejected by the Brodhull, or else the assembly itself resorted to suggesting a candidate. In July 1439 three men were nominated in the Brodhull, from whom one was to be chosen by Hastings; in 1441 John Parker III, presented as the Port’s choice as bailiff, was refused admittance by the general assembly, which nominated three other men from whom Hastings was to select; and in 1444 the Portsmen were asked to choose between John Carpenter and John Gray ‘or els ... a suffycyent man that was there afore bycause of presens uncertayne’. It may be that there was competition for the post among the men of Hastings. In 1452 John Clyve complained that although he had been elected and admitted as bailiff to Yarmouth in the previous year, the bailiff of Hastings, Alan Honywood, had removed him from office without reasonable cause. Although Honywood was let off with a comparatively light fine, the Brodhull decreed that anyone behaving thus in the future would be fined £20 and barred from the assembly for life. Even so, in 1457 Clyve was again dismissed as bailiff, and choice had to be made between three others.12 Ibid. 12, 14, 18, 29, 38. Hastings stood alone among the Cinque Ports in finding the selection of a bailiff for Yarmouth so difficult; but whether the problem lay more in local competition for the post, or rather the lack of men of sufficient means to fill it to the Brodhull’s satisfaction, is hard to determine.

There is no suspicion of outside interference in the parliamentary representation of Hastings, save, as already noted, in the election of John Stoughton to the Parliament of 1447 summoned to meet at Bury St. Edmunds. Stoughton, who had long been in royal service and was currently serjeant of the catery, did have links with the locality, for, as we have seen, his brother Thomas had been appointed by the King as bailiff of Hastings some 18 months earlier, only to be rejected by the townsmen. Thomas now successfully sought election for Rye, so the brothers entered the Commons together. John had been favoured by Henry VI with several offices and grants, and besides his post in the Household was also currently collector of customs at Calais, controller of customs and alnager at Boston and feodary of the honour of Richmond in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. It may be that his return to Parliament was engineered by the King’s favourite (Sir) James Fiennes*, whose ambition to be warden of the Cinque Ports was to be realized when Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, died a prisoner during the first few days of the parliamentary session.

Few of the other MPs for Hastings ever held royal office, and in their cases there is no suggestion that they owed their returns to outside interference. Previous to their elections for this Port, Tamworth and Vestynden had both been collectors of customs and subsidies in the ports of Sussex; and John Parker III may have been the man of this name who purveyed fish for the Household, but this was not until after he had sat in Parliament.