Dorchester

Under the terms of the charter granted by Edward III in 1337 the burgesses of Dorchester held their borough from the Crown for a fee farm of £20 p.a. The charter was confirmed by successive monarchs, in 1396, 1400, 1420 and 1429, without significant alteration.3 Recs. Dorchester ed. Mayo, 2-12, 15-16; CPR, 1429-36, p. 80. Early in Henry VI’s reign the fee farm was being paid to his grandfather’s widow, Joan of Navarre, and in 1426 the bailiffs were styled ‘bailiffs of Lady Joan, queen of England’ and used her seal for official business.4 CPR, 1413-16, p. 166; 1422-9, p. 22; Recs. Dorchester, 259. Although it was the county town, in size of population Dorchester apparently lagged behind some other boroughs in Dorset, being smaller than Bridport and Shaftesbury, and there were times of economic difficulty. During the reign of Edward III the burgesses had petitioned the King for a remission of their fee farm on the grounds of a decline in local trade, which had led to houses being left deserted, but the situation was evidently not so serious as to elicit a sympathetic response. The burgesses proved more successful when they presented a petition to the Parliament of 1431, expressing their concerns about the effects of the statute of weights and measures passed in the previous Parliament, of 1429-30. This statute had stipulated that every city, borough and town should have its own scales with weights fixed according to the standard set at the Exchequer.5 8 Hen. VI, c. 5. These provisions affected the privileges given to Dorchester under its charter, which accorded the bailiffs and burgesses the profits of weighing all goods bought and sold within a radius of 12 miles. Gentlemen and other ‘lords of vills’ within that area, who were subject to fines for breaches of the statute, were now challenging Dorchester’s rights. The bailiffs and burgesses, deprived of their liberties, and claiming that the loss of trade meant that they would not be able to raise the full fee farm, asked for a royal commission of inquiry. No such commission was set up; rather, a new statute was granted, specifically reserving to Dorchester its right to weigh goods within the prescribed area.6 Statutes, ii. 266: 9 Hen. VI, c. 6.

Dorchester was not alone in its economic difficulties at this time. In 1436 it was one of several townships in Dorset listed as being unable to make their normal contributions towards the fifteenth and tenth granted in the Parliament of the previous year. Five ‘boroughs’ were included on the list: Dorchester, Shaftesbury, Wareham, Bridport and the ‘Isle of Portland’ (presumably comprising Weymouth and Melcombe Regis). They were allowed tax rebates, with Dorchester’s remittance being the second highest, at £2 10s.7 VCH Dorset, ii. 246; E179/103/79. The statute of 1431 seems to have had unwanted effects on Dorchester’s trade. A few years later the burgesses complained that because they were being adversely treated in several other towns in the county many of the wealthier inhabitants had moved away, and those remaining were so troubled by having their goods seized in those other places and the want of defence of their liberties that they too were likely to be compelled to leave. It was becoming increasingly difficult to raise the fee farm. A royal commission was set up on 24 Feb. 1439 to investigate.8 CPR, 1436-41, pp. 269-70. A record of the findings of the commissioners (the sheriff of Dorset, two of the j.p.s, a member of the gentry, John Newburgh I*, and the lawyer Robert Rempston*), has not been discovered, but they evidently did not report in Dorchester’s favour, for the fee farm remained fixed at £20 p.a. at least until the reign of Henry VII.9 CPR, 1436-41, pp. 222, 447; CCR, 1447-54, p. 3. Dorchester’s fee farm was among sums assigned in the Parl. of 1449-50 to pay the expenses of the royal household: PROME, xii. 88. Edward IV’s grants of the fee farm successively to his queen, the duke of Clarence, and the marquess of Dorset show that it remained fixed at £20 until 1484: CPR, 1461-7, pp. 430, 480; 1467-77, p. 242; 1476-85, p. 452; CCR, 1468-76, no. 1390.

The borough ordinances of 1414 had lain down that every year two bailiffs were to be elected by a body of 24 ‘lawful’ burgesses, and sworn in soon after Michaelmas. The bailiffs took full responsibility for the borough’s finances, but any ‘courtesies’ offered to a royal justice or official in connexion with business touching the community were to be sanctioned by a select group of 12 burgesses. Entry into the freedom of the borough, which was open to inhabitants paying scot and lot, required a double payment of rent to the borough as well as a ‘fine by pledge’.

Returns for Dorchester survive for 18 of the 22 Parliaments summoned between 1422 and 1460, and the names of the MPs for one of those missing (that of 1433), were noted by William Prynne† in the seventeenth century. No fewer than 28 individuals sat for the borough during this period, two-thirds of them – 19 out of the 28 – apparently only doing so once, and another six just twice. The gaps in the returns mean that we cannot be sure whether or not Dorchester was represented by men experienced in the workings of the Commons on every occasion, but both MPs may have been novices in perhaps six of the 19 Parliaments documented. It is clear, however, that in at least seven Parliaments one of the MPs did have such previous experience, and that in six more neither man returned was a newcomer. Even so, this compares unfavourably with the earlier decades of the fifteenth century, for in the 14 Parliaments between 1399 and December 1421 for which returns are extant in only one was Dorchester represented by two novices. Also by contrast with the earlier period, what is striking about Dorchester’s representation in Henry VI’s reign is the number of MPs who had sat for other Dorset boroughs before their first return for this constituency: as many as seven of the 28 had done so.10 Ford for Melcombe; Kayleway for Shaftesbury; Gerard and Henton for Wareham; Hillary for Weymouth and Bridport; Philip Leweston for Melcombe and Bridport, and Brunyng for Melcombe, Lyme and Wareham. Another three (Bishop, Frampton and John Leweston) went on to sit for other boroughs after first representing Dorchester. From the point of view of continuity of representation, there were only five known instances of re-election to consecutive Parliaments: John Ford sat in seven Parliaments running between 1417 and 1423, and Henry Sherard was returned in 1426 and 1427, John Bishop in 1433 and 1435, and Robert Brunyng in 1453 and 1455.

In the years from 1386 to 1421 two-thirds of the known MPs for Dorchester (18 out of 27) had been resident burgesses, so once again the period here under review presents a change in the pattern of representation, for in Henry VI’s reign little more than a third of the MPs (eight out of 28) may be categorized as burgesses-proper. Furthermore, these resident burgesses (Aysshe, Baron, Jacob, Jordan, Martin, Mose, Saundres and Tailor) took only ten of the 38 recorded seats. They did, however, play an active role in the government of their home town. At least six of them (Aysshe, Jacob, Martin, Mose, Saundres and Tailor) held office as bailiff there, while Jordan served for many years as steward of the borough court. Bailiffs currently in office served in Parliament in 1427 (Mose) and 1432 (Martin); while Jordan was steward when elected in 1425. Some of the eight were regular attestors of the parliamentary elections at Dorchester: Jacob did so seven times and Mose eight. Nevertheless, despite the interest in parliamentary affairs that this might imply, there is little sign of a continuing tradition of service in the Commons among Dorchester families, save that Jordan was the son of a namesake who had sat in eight Parliaments for the borough between 1397 and 1414, and that Aysshe was related to one of the MPs of 1394.

Besides the eight resident burgesses, four more MPs are known to have held property in the town, although they are not recorded taking part in its administration. The kinsmen John and Philip Leweston each owned a burgage, although Philip leased his out to tenants, while retaining a chamber and stable for his personal use when he happened to be in town.11 More often he was in Westminster serving as a filacer in the ct. of common pleas, and later in his career he moved to Surrey. Thomas Oliver, whose own inherited lands were situated at Dartmouth and Kingsbridge in Devon, came by his property in Dorchester through marriage to a local widow. Although Henry Sherard possessed holdings in Dorchester, he probably lived on one of the manors belonging to his family at Warmwell and Little Mayne, not far away. Another nine of the 28 MPs resided elsewhere in the county, and may have been known to the townsmen of Dorchester only through their visits to trade or conduct other business.12 Brunyng, Ford, Frampton, Gerard, Henton, Hillary, Kayleway, Pelley and Wothe. Of the rest, two may be regarded as complete outsiders: William Essex, probably a native of Coventry in Warwickshire, who was an official in the Exchequer and established himself as a man of property in London and Middlesex; and William Okeden, whose career in royal administration was focused on Eton College and Windsor castle.

By occupation, seven of the MPs have been found to be merchants or craftsmen of one sort or another, making a living through trade: Aysshe, Oliver (a ‘tailor’ who crossed to France in the duke of Bedford’s retinue), Jacob (who shipped cloth and victuals overseas from Melcombe), Mose and Saundres, both mercers, Baron, another tailor, and Martin, a draper. Only in 1447 and 1450 were both MPs of this sort. Perhaps surprisingly, the two men who successfully persuaded the Lords and Commons of 1431 to protect Dorchester’s trading privileges were not merchants themselves – rather, they were both lawyers. No doubt the electorate had concluded that in this instance those with knowledge of the law (one of them, Frampton, is thought to have been a member of the Middle Temple) were better qualified to present their case in the Lower House. This reasoning may also have affected the outcome of other elections: there were probably 12 lawyers in the group of 28 MPs,13 Brunyng, Essex, Ford, Frampton, Gerard, Hillary, Jordan, Kayleway, Philip Leweston, Okeden, Pelley and Sherard. and members of this profession predominated. This was a relatively new development. Lawyers had only come to take a major share of the borough’s representation from 1417, when John Ford began his unbroken run of seven Parliaments. In Henry VI’s reign Dorchester elected at least one lawyer to 14 of the 19 Parliaments where its Membership is recorded, and in those of 1431 and November 1449 both MPs are known to have received training in the law. Although none of them rose particularly high in their profession, several achieved a notable level of competence. Jordan served as steward of Dorchester for 18 years or more; and Hillary was later employed as steward of the estates of Abbotsbury abbey. Others made their careers in the courts at Westminster: Ford and Philip Leweston were attorneys in the common pleas, the latter being a filacer there for nearly 20 years (his return for Dorchester in 1435 occurred while he was in office); and Essex was an attorney in the Exchequer, and at the time of his election in 1449 was actively engaged there on the business of Queen Margaret and the duchy of Lancaster. With their profession sometimes went enhanced social status, for several of the lawyers were described as ‘gentlemen’. Essex and George Middleton, whose principal occupation is uncertain, both attained armigerous rank.

For the most part there is insufficient evidence to categorize the MPs in terms of their wealth, and for many their incomes were probably quite modest. Yet Jordan acquired estates in Dorset through marriage and other means worth £23 p.a., and Brunyng’s landed holdings in Dorset and Wiltshire, also acquired through marriage, were worth £40 a year. Probably the wealthiest of the MPs was William Essex, a clerk of the Exchequer when returned in 1449, who became King’s remembrancer the following year and held that lucrative post until his death in 1480 (by which date he had risen to be under treasurer of England). He, the filacer Philip Leweston and Middleton were the only ones among Dorchester’s MPs ever to be appointed by the Crown to offices at the centre of government. Middleton, returned to the Parliament of 1460 (summoned in the aftermath of the Yorkist victory at Northampton), was to become a yeoman of the Crown under Edward IV, who appointed him porter of Clarendon for life in 1461. It may be that external influence, respectively exercised by the Crown and the Yorkist faction, was a factor in the elections at Dorchester of Essex and Middleton, yet there is a strong possibility that neither man was a stranger there, for Essex had been tronager at the Dorset port of Poole only shortly before, and Middleton had earlier officiated as alnager and escheator in the county. Their posts would have required them to visit Dorset regularly. There seems less likelihood that Okeden was acquainted with the men of Dorchester, however. When returned for the borough to the Parliament of 1455 he was still holding office as coroner of Eton College, where he had been serving for the past six years, and had recently been made clerk of Windsor castle. It looks as if his election to the Parliament was arranged so that he might protect the interests of the Windsor estates while the Act of Resumption was subject to discussion.

Certain of Dorchester’s MPs were active in county administration. Most notably, Jordan, who had earlier been escheator of Dorset, was serving as a coroner when returned in 1425. Eight were appointed to ad hoc commissions (although only three of them had experience of such duties before their earliest Parliaments for this constituency); and three of the lawyers were made justices of the peace of the quorum in the county, albeit not until their parliamentary service had ended.14 Frampton, Hillary (for as long as 26 years), and Kayleway. Essex and Philip Leweston later served on the quorum in Mdx. and Surr. respectively. At least ten of them attested the indentures for the shire elections held at Dorchester, of whom Mose did so four times, Brunyng five, Jacob and Frampton six, and Jordan eight. Such appearances at the county court sometimes coincided with their own elections to Parliament for the borough. For instance, Ford attested the shire elections to the Parliament of May 1421 in which he was to represent Dorchester; Wothe did likewise for that of February 1449; and Brunyng for those of 1453 and 1455.

Although there is no evidence to prove the supposition, it is possible that on occasion the links between those returned for Dorchester and prominent landowners of Dorset may have affected the outcome of elections. For example, when elected to the Parliaments of 1453 and 1455 Brunyng was acting as a feoffee for John Stourton II*, Lord Stourton, a member of the King’s Council and until recently treasurer of the royal household. Among the most influential of the landowners of Dorset were the Staffords of Hooke, with whom at least four of Dorchester’s MPs of this period formed an attachment. Sherard was associated with Sir Humphrey Stafford*, whom he accompanied to the Commons in 1426, 1427 and 1432 (on the last occasion when Sir Humphrey’s half-brother John Stafford, bishop Stafford of Bath and Wells, was chancellor), and acted as executor for his son and heir apparent Sir Richard Stafford*; Hillary’s links with Bishop Stafford pre-dated his return for Dorchester to the Parliament of 1429, and he later served as bailiff of the episcopal liberty in Dorset and Somerset; Kayleway (1437) was a feoffee of the Staffords’ estates; and Middleton came to be on good terms with Humphrey Stafford IV*, afterwards Lord Stafford of Southwick and earl of Devon. Perhaps such connexions with the powerful predisposed the electors of Dorchester in their favour.

Among the privileges enjoyed by freemen of Dorchester was that of electing MPs. The electoral returns for Dorset to the Parliaments from 1407 to 1437 regularly comprised two indentures: one for the knights of the shire and the other for its seven boroughs. The latter, composite indentures were drawn up between the sheriff and four men from each borough, and were accorded the same dates as the meetings of the county court at Dorchester for the election of the knights. There is no evidence, however, that the election of any of the burgesses actually took place in that court. The procedure adopted was one of convenience, in order that the sheriff could be notified simultaneously of the results of the several borough elections held elsewhere. The statement in the indentures that each election had been made with the assent of the commonalty of the town in question, supports the view that the indentures merely recorded the formal presentation by delegates of the names of those already elected. Dorchester’s elections were almost certainly conducted in a different venue.