New Romney

The tenth-century foundation of New Romney was a response to the silting up of the original port of Old Romney, two miles to the east. From at least the 1200s, however, the sea was in retreat from New Romney as well. A storm of 1287 flooded the town and port with mud and shingle and permanently diverted the course of the river Rother, rerouting it to meet the sea at Rye, and by Henry VI’s reign New Romney had lost much of its former economic significance. Romney also lacked a strategic role in the period under review. It never faced the threat of French attack or had to adapt its rudimentary defences to accommodate gunpowder weaponry.1 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 759. It was not until 1456-7 that the Port actually purchased some guns and repaired the butts, presumably to practise firing the new weapons: E. Kent Archs., New Romney recs., assmt. bk. 1448-1526, NR/FAc 3, f. 30v. Its importance in the fifteenth century therefore rested almost solely on its status as one of the original Cinque Ports. It was the usual meeting place of the Ports’ assembly or Brodhull, its barons shared in the right to carry the canopy of estate at royal coronations and it had a member-port in Lydd on the other side of the Rother estuary. It was Lydd’s obligation to provide one of the five ships required of Romney for its ship-service and a fifth of the wages of its parliamentary barons.2 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 759; White and Black Bks. of Cinque Ports (Kent Rec. Ser. xix), pp. xi, 43; K.M.E. Murray, Constitutional Hist. Cinque Ports, 54-55. It appears that relations between Romney and Lydd were cordial during Henry VI’s reign,3 Although there had been disputes in the late 14th cent. and trouble flared again in the early 16th: Murray, 57, 107. in contrast to the long dispute between Dover and its member-port of Faversham.

The business of the Cinque Ports was a continual expense for New Romney. The Brodhull regularly convened twice a year but there were also special ad hoc meetings at other times. Usually Romney sent four or five deputies to the Brodhull, but sometimes only two men attended. It is unlikely that these representatives received any payment for their attendance (and certainly none is recorded in the chamberlain’s accounts), but the meetings and related errands were still at times costly. The friendship of the warden of the Cinque Ports or his lieutenant, for example, might need soliciting, as in October 1450 when John Chenew received 14s. 5½d. for expenses incurred in riding to the duke of Buckingham.4 White and Black Bks. pp. xii, 1-42; Murray, 164; NR/FAc 3, f. 13. Similarly, Romney paid its share of the costs of business that affected the Ports as a whole, most commonly the regular pleading at the Exchequer to ensure the exemption of the Portsmen from parliamentary taxation.5 e.g. New Romney recs., assmt. bk. 1384-1446, NR/FAc 2, f. 130v. Its close relationship with its neighbour Dover also involved expenditure. In 1437-8 the chamberlains spent 9s. 6d. on sending Richard Clitheroe, James Lowys, John Adam and William Wermyston to Dover to discuss its dispute with Faversham, and a further 56s. 8d. on the costs that the mayor of Dover, William Brewes*, incurred pursuing this matter.6 Ibid. ff. 126v-7, 129.

The later medieval economic decline of Romney is evident from its financial records of the first half of the fifteenth century. The general maltolt brought in only some £7 in 1421-2 but no more than £4 10s. a decade later. By 1452-3 it stood at just over £3 and by 1460-1 at a mere 15s. 6½d.7 Ibid. ff. 114, 136v; NR/FAc 3, ff. 18v, 42. To counter this alarming trend, the town frequently resorted to scots and other extraordinary taxes, although these raised considerably less than they had in the past.8 NR/FAc 2, ff. 114, 136v; NR/FAc 3, ff. 18v, 42. Scots, which had raised just under £77 in 1397, slumped dramatically: one of 1422 brought in just £10 8s. 2d.; another of 1430-1 no more than £5 10s. 6d. An additional tax levied for the Port’s contribution towards the King’s voyage to Calais did however bring in a further £20 7s. 9d. in the latter accounting year,9 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 759; NR/FAc 2, f. 112. and ad hoc impositions did at least help to maintain municipal resources at a sufficient level to meet collective expenses throughout the period under review.

Unlike Dover, late medieval New Romney was not a corporation, since it remained under the lordship of the archbishop of Canterbury until the end of the sixteenth century. The archbishop appointed its bailiff and the only elected officers were the 12 jurats, chosen on 25 Mar. each year. Originally, all of Romney’s barons participated in the elections of the jurats; after 1411, however, only those barons nominated by the existing jurats of each of the Port’s wards took part. In practice, the Portsmen enjoyed considerable powers of self-government, even though the bailiff was nominally Romney’s chief officer. The jurats governed the Port on a day-to-day basis, hearing civil pleas in the bailiff’s absence and retaining custody of the common seal. They also formally approved new bailiffs, who had to take an oath to uphold the town’s customs and privileges to gain admission to the Port.10 Reg. Daniel Rough (Kent Rec. Ser. xvi), pp. li-lv; The Commons 1386-1421, i. 760. Disputes between the bailiff and the barons like those that had characterized the time of William Courtenay, archbishop of Canterbury, for most of Richard II’s reign are not readily apparent in the period under review. Even if it is likely that the barons’ attempt in 1442-3 to secure the farm of the office of bailiff caused tensions, their unsuccessful bid may have given rise to the subsequent appointment as bailiff of one of their number, John Joseph†.11 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 759; NR/FAc 2, f. 132; White and Black Bks. 16. The choice of Joseph was far from unusual, since townsmen exercised the offices of bailiff or deputy bailiff for much of Henry VI’s reign, and their appointments must have done much to prevent quarrels with the archbishop.

The names have survived of 17 of the MPs for New Romney in Henry VI’s Parliaments, that is, all but those of 1455. The great majority resided in the Port, so presenting a similar picture to the three and a half decades immediately preceding 1422:12 All of the known MPs for Romney in the years 1386-1421 were resident barons paying maltolts: The Commons 1386-1421, i. 760.only two of them, Guy Ellis and Geoffrey Godelok, appear never to have paid maltolts or to have met the statutory requirement that MPs should reside in their constituencies. John St. Leger was another who did not set down roots at Romney, although he was briefly a jurat there in the mid fifteenth century. A Northamptonshire man by birth, St. Leger gained election to the Parliament of November 1449 just a few months after his admission to the freedom of Romney, but he ceased to feature in local records within five years. The returns of the likes of Ellis, Godelok and St. Leger may reflect a dearth of suitable candidates from within New Romney and, perhaps, the continuing economic decline of the Port.

Even though they were predominantly local men resident at Romney, there is little evidence of family traditions of sitting in the Commons among the 17. Several of them did, however, certainly or probably possess family links with Parliament or came to form such connexions with it. Ellis, for example, was a son of Thomas Ellis†, a knight of the shire for Kent in the last Parliament of Henry V’s reign. John Adam’s father was probably the Stephen Adam† who sat for New Romney in 1376, and Richard Clitheroe was possibly the son of William Clitheroe†, a baron for the Port in at least six early fifteenth-century Parliaments, and certainly the father of another William Clitheroe*, an MP for Hythe in 1449-50, and of a daughter who married John Chenew, his fellow baron in the Parliament of 1447. Godelok and John Porter also became the sons-in-law of MPs before they themselves entered the Commons, the former marrying the daughter and heir of Richard Maidstone*, a knight of the shire for Middlesex, and Porter the daughter and heir of another of the 17, James Lowys.

As some of these relationships indicate, several of the MPs had interests and connexions beyond Romney. Two of the most prominent men among them, Clitheroe and Adam, were also figures of some importance in the wider county of Kent. A landowner of no little means, Clitheroe possessed connexions with important figures like John Darell* and Geoffrey Lowther*, and his brother became bishop of Bangor. He came to enjoy recognition as an ‘esquire’, as too did Adam (who became a significant landowner through his marriage to the coheiress of Lord Northwode) and Clement Overton. Overton stands out among the MPs in pursuing an extensive military career before representing Romney in Parliament, receiving grants of land in Normandy in Henry V’s reign and serving as captain of the castle of Montivilliers for well over a decade.

Another of the 17, Guy Ellis, was a ‘gentleman’ from an established minor Kentish landed family. He was also a lawyer – a profession whose members commonly enjoyed the status of ‘gentlemen’ – as was Chenew. Four others, Thomas Howlot, Lowys, Porter and Robert Scras, either probably or possibly received some sort of legal training, although Porter and Scras certainly engaged in trade, as did Clitheroe, who was a ship-owner as well as an esquire. Of those MPs who followed occupations more typical for townsmen, James Bamlond was a local merchant and ship-owner, Stephen Harry a butcher, William Piers a ‘barber’ and Thomas Smith a draper who also traded in wine. By contrast, Richard Stotard features as a mere ‘husbandman’ in a lawsuit heard in the court of common pleas in the early 1430s, although it is unlikely that the sobriquet accurately reflected his status.13 CP40/687, rot. 536.

There is no evidence for Stotard’s income or that of most of the other MPs, although one exception is that of Adam, probably the most substantial landowner among them. Late in Henry IV’s reign, he possessed lands in Kent valued at £40 p.a. for the purposes of the subsidy of 1412, as well as other holdings in Sussex, and the estates that came to him in marriage greatly enhanced these interests. Godelok also gained much through his wife, since a return for the subsidy of 1436 indicates that she was the heir to estates in Middlesex and Hertfordshire with an annual value of £36. As already indicated, Clitheroe was another of the more substantial landholders, as apparently were Ellis, Overton and Scras, but evidence for incomes that others of the MPs derived from trade or the law is totally lacking.

Most of the 17 would nevertheless have been relatively wealthy in local terms, and the fact that service as a jurat of New Romney was generally a prerequisite for election to the Commons is a further indication that they were of greater substance than most of the town’s residents. Only the two outsiders, Ellis and Godelok, and the soldier Overton were never jurats. Of the 14 who did become jurats, all held the office in conjunction with that of MP in one or more Parliaments, and all but one of them became a jurat before (albeit in some cases only immediately before) their first or only election to the Commons. The exception was John Chenew, who entered his first Parliament in 1439 just months after attaining the freedom of New Romney and did not join the jurats until a couple of years after the dissolution of that assembly. One possible explanation for his delay in doing so is the continued survival of his putative father, William Chenew, who, active in the local government of New Romney for several decades, was still a serving jurat in 1438-9.14 NR/FAc 2, f. 128v. It may well be that there was not room for two family members in the administration of the Port at the same time and that John was still a young man when he began his career in Parliament. Subsequently bailiff of Romney, he was one of eight of the MPs who held this position or that of deputy bailiff. This group included the non-jurats, Ellis, Godelok and Overton, and five of the eight sat in one or more Parliaments while in office as the bailiff or his deputy. Chenew was also a bailiff for the Cinque Ports at the annual Great Yarmouth herring fair, as were eight of the other MPs on one or more occasions. Like those of their predecessors of the period 1386-1421 who were bailiffs at Yarmouth, they all served as such after beginning their parliamentary careers. This stood in contrast to the other Kentish Cinque Ports, particularly those of Hythe and Sandwich, which on several occasions sent to Yarmouth Portsmen who had yet to attend Parliament but did so subsequently. It is impossible to ascertain whether this difference, for which there is no ready explanation, was of any particular significance.

The MPs for New Romney were more involved as holders of office directly under the Crown – whether in their own Port, the wider county of Kent or beyond – than their counterparts from the poorer and relatively insignificant Hythe, although not to the same extent as those of the two other Kentish Cinque Ports, Dover and Sandwich. Five of them served as ad hoc commissioners, although only Ellis certainly already possessed such experience before he became an MP. Just one of the 17, the outsider Godelok, had an association with the centre of power, having taken up office as a spigurnel of the Chancery some three years or more before his first election for Romney in 1445. He received the King’s livery at the great wardrobe for this office, the appointment to which he probably owed to the then chancellor, his patron John Stafford, archbishop of Canterbury. It was Stafford who appointed him bailiff of New Romney and who was almost certainly instrumental in securing his subsequent election to the Commons.

To a greater or lesser extent, the other bailiffs among the 17 who had little or no known prior connexion with Romney before taking up the office may also have had the archbishop’s patronage to thank for their seats in the Commons. Otherwise, there is next to no evidence of links between the MPs and great magnates, whether religious or secular. Adam did procure letters of attorney prior to sailing to France with Thomas, duke of Clarence, in 1417 but, owing to Clarence’s death at the battle of Baugé in March 1421, he cannot have owed anything to that lord for his parliamentary career during the period under review.

In sitting in more than one Parliament, Adam was in a clear majority among the MPs. He was also one of those who first represented Romney before 1422, as did Clitheroe, Harry, Lowys and Smith. Clitheroe stands out in attending no fewer than 14 Parliaments from that of April 1414 to that of 1447. Lowys was a Member of nine, both Adam and Scras of seven and Chenew of five, although four of Scras’s Parliaments met after the period under review. Godelok was also a Member of seven Parliaments but only three of them as a baron for Romney. Of the remaining MPs, four represented Romney in more than one Parliament, if not in every case solely within the period under review, and only seven appear to have sat just once. While none of these figures is definitive, owing to the loss of the return of 1455, it is quite evident that the electors of Romney valued previous parliamentary experience and continuity of representation, just as they had in the three and a half decades from 1386 to 1421.15 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 760. Only following the summoning of the controversial ‘Parliament of Devils’ in 1459 did the Portsmen send two novices to the Commons, assuming that neither John Porter nor Thomas Howlot had sat in 1455. By contrast, in at least 11 of the Parliaments of this period both of New Romney’s barons had sat previously. The practice of electing men to consecutive Parliaments also helped to ensure continuity of representation. There were at least 11 such instances in this period, most notably the re-election of both barons of 1435 to the following assembly and the return of Clitheroe to the successive Parliaments of 1422 and 1423, of 1435 and 1437 and of 1442, 1445 and 1447. It is possible to discern a couple of trends in Romney’s choice of representatives during the second half of Henry VI’s reign. First, there was a greater tendency than hitherto to elect men with interests focused firmly on the Ports, as exemplified by Scras and Chenew in particular. Secondly, the lawyers or putative lawyers among them were much more prominent in the parliamentary representation of New Romney from 1449 onwards.

As in the other Cinque Ports, the barons of New Romney held their elections to Parliament upon receiving a precept from the clerk of Dover castle, to whom they sent back the results to include in the composite return he made for all the Ports. There is little sign that events outside the Ports greatly influenced Romney’s electoral politics. Aside from the possible occasional intervention by the archbishop of Canterbury, the great men of the wider county of Kent appear not to have interfered in its parliamentary elections in the way that James Fiennes*, Lord Saye and Sele, did at Hythe in 1449. In any case, there is no evidence that the Portsmen considered the election of the archbishop’s servants an unwelcome occurrence.

Given the economic decline of New Romney, it is no surprise to find that the wages of its MPs often fell into arrears. Most notably, the settlement of Ellis’s wages for the long Parliament of 1453-4 prompted a long and acrimonious dispute that ended in litigation in the court of King’s bench, a quarrel perhaps intensified by his failure to establish personal contacts within the Port. In the first decade of Henry VI’s reign, Romney’s practice of sharing parliamentary representation with Dover, the Port with which it also alternately supplied bailiffs for the Yarmouth herring fair, helped to offset the burden of supporting its barons in the Commons. In 1426, for instance, after the early return of Smith and Harry from Leicester, where the Parliament of that year met, one of the barons for Dover, John Byngley*, continued to represent New Romney and received 30s. for 18 days’ attendance.16 NR/FAc 2, f. 107v. This practice appears to have died out in the 1430s. The last such instance recorded in the Romney accounts is the payment of 16s. 8d. to Walter Nesham* of Dover for eight days’ attendance at Westminster in 1432,17 Ibid. f. 116v. although it persisted at least until the following year, since the chamberlains of Dover paid James Lowys 20s. for representing the interests of their Port in the Parliament of 1433.18 Add. 21965, f. 191v. For only a few of Henry VI’s Parliaments is there evidence for the wages of Romney’s MPs. The Port appears to have paid each of its barons in those of 1427 and 1435 2s. per day, but its Members of that of 1453 received just half that amount. In 1459, however, Romney allowed its representatives 20d., almost certainly because they had to make a longer than usual journey to attend the assembly which met at Coventry.19 NR/FAc 2, ff. 122, 134v; KB27/783, rot. 70; NR/FAc 3, f. 39v.

Apart from attending the Commons, the MPs for Romney took the opportunity to transact business on behalf of the Cinque Ports in general during their time at Parliaments. The municipal records also show that its jurats sometimes sought documents relating to parliamentary proceedings. In 1429, for example, they paid Thomas atte Crowche*, then one of the Members for Dover, for bringing to Romney copies of the ‘articles’ of the Parliament of that year. They also paid the clerk of the Parliaments 3s. 4d. for copies of the Acts passed in the Parliament of 1432, documents that one might assume, for want of evidence to the contrary, that Romney’s own MPs in that assembly carried home with them.20 NR/FAc 2, ff. 112, 116v.