Bramber

From the late thirteenth century until 1384 the boroughs of Bramber and Steyning (situated facing each other on opposite banks of the river Adur) had been represented at roughly two out of every three Parliaments summoned. Most often they sent two Members jointly, but on occasion one or other place sent both; it never happened that Bramber and Steyning made separate returns. In the late fourteenth century there was a break in representation; neither borough was represented in the 13 Parliaments summoned between 1384 and 1397, although in 1399 they jointly sent two Members.1 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 649-50. After that an even longer break of over half a century occurred: neither borough made returns until 1453. On this occasion, entirely without precedent, both Bramber and Steyning were represented by two Members. Furthermore, their parliamentary history remained separate thereafter, even though, until Henry VIII’s reign, representation continued to be sporadic. Bramber alone made returns in 1459, although its right to do so seems to have been challenged, for the words ‘nullus talis burgus’ (no such borough) were written next to the names of its MPs on the schedule recording their election.2 C219/16/5. Despite this doubt about Bramber’s burghal status, both it and Steyning are known to have been represented in the Parliament of 1460, three of the Parliaments of Edward IV’s reign and again in 1491.

The reasons for the revival of Bramber’s representation in 1453 were seemingly predicated by external factors. Certainly, it was not prompted by any recent growth in the prosperity of the town or its inhabitants. The castle, manor and borough of Bramber formed part of the barony of Bramber belonging to the Mowbray dukes of Norfolk. Their income from the town itself, together with the rents from their houses at Steyning, had not amounted to much in the late fourteenth century, and declined further in the period here under review, falling from just £2 2d. in 1431-2 to £1 16s. 6d. in 1444-5. Rents proved to be increasingly difficult to collect (or else the Mowbray officials were incompetent), so that by 1465 rental arrears dated back over 15 years.3 Arundel Castle mss, A361-2, 1873. There were perhaps 30 burgages in Bramber at this time, although whether all of them were inhabited, and, if so, what size population is suggested by this number of dwellings, remains unclear. The local market seems not to have thrived; many shops and stalls were described as empty or in ruins by the late fifteenth century, and some surviving account rolls record no income whatsoever from tolls. In 1445 profits from Bramber’s fair amounted to no more than 10d.4 VCH Suss. vi (1), 208, 210.

The apparent decline between 1431 and 1445 may partly have resulted from the transfer of some of the Mowbrays’ properties to Sele priory, for in 1438 John, duke of Norfolk, confirmed the grant in frank almoin made to the monks by one of his ancestors, this consisting of a gift of the bridges at Bramber along with certain messuages, mills and fisheries; and he himself granted the priory the mills and fishery in the water of Bramber stretching from the church of Old Shoreham upstream to ‘Bedeneye’.5 CAD, iii. D549. The duke’s principal official in the town was a bailiff, and he continued to appoint a constable for the castle. In the mid fifteenth century this latter post was held by his retainer Robert Langton*, who seemingly treated the constableship as a sinecure. Indeed, the castle may not have been inhabited on a permanent basis in this period. In the past there had been complaints that it was not properly fortified, and although its role as an administrative centre had continued, since the honour court was presumably still held there, it seems likely that the castle fell into disuse in the second half of the century.6 VCH Suss. vi (1), 205.

In the three Parliaments of Henry VI’s reign for which returns for Bramber are extant, the borough was represented by six different individuals. None of them were burgesses of Bramber or, indeed, came from the immediate locality. Only two, William Erneley and Richard Lewknor, were Sussex men. The former, a younger son of a family based at Sidlesham in the west of the county, lived at Arundel, some seven miles away; while the latter belonged to one of the leading gentry families of the county, seated at Horsted Keynes several miles to the north-east. The four others all came from further away, sometimes from a considerable distance: Richard Stargrave from Hampshire, Michael Fayrwell from Buckinghamshire, Nicholas Morley originally from Lancashire (although he had filled a prominent place in the community of Hertfordshire for some 30 years before he sat in Parliament for Bramber), and William Hussey from Lincolnshire. Clearly, none of the six MPs fulfilled the statutory residential requirements for representing the constituency. Even Morley, currently engaged in a protracted dispute for possession of the former Waleys estates at Glynde, to the east of Lewes, could not be said to have yet established close connexions with local dignitaries. For all of them their service for Bramber formed just one brief stage in their extended parliamentary careers. Fayrwell had sat for his home town of Chipping Wycombe before he represented Bramber; Erneley likewise for Arundel; and Morley had served as a knight of the shire for Hertfordshire in four Parliaments before his return as a burgess for Bramber in 1453. Thus, probably coincidentally rather than by design, in each of the three Parliaments here under discussion the borough was represented by one man with previous experience of the workings of the Commons. After representing Bramber, the three ‘novices’ went on to sit for other constituencies: Lewknor appeared in four more Parliaments for three different Sussex boroughs; Stargrave represented the neighbouring borough of Steyning in that of 1467; and Hussey sat in the same Parliament for the Lincolnshire town of Grantham.

For possible explanations for the return of these particular individuals we need to look more closely at their careers. Both of those returned to the Parliament summoned to assemble at Reading in 1453, Lewknor and Morley, were members of the household of Henry VI, in receipt of fees and livery from the King and perhaps prepared to support measures put forward by his ministers in what turned out to be a partisan assembly heavily weighted in favour of the Lancastrian court. Both men had already played a useful part in the administration of the shires, Lewknor as escheator in Surrey and Sussex, and Morley in the same office and also as sheriff in Essex and Hertfordshire, a member of the Hertfordshire bench and regular appointee to ad hoc commissions. In addition, Morley had experience of military campaigns in France, a subject of immediate importance, as news of English defeats arrived from Gascony. These were men of standing and authority. It may be that Lewknor owed his seat to the duke of Norfolk, who at an unknown date appointed him as constable of Lewes castle and his master forester in the county, and in this regard Lewknor’s close association with his half-brother Thomas Hoo II*, a lawyer intricately bound up in the duke’s affairs, may have been a crucial element in securing his election. Both Lewknor and Morley had personal matters to pursue while the Parliament was in session, the one to do battle in the lawcourts with his eldest half-brother (Sir) Roger Lewknor* over their respective inheritances following the recent death of their father Sir Thomas*; the other to further his wife’s claim to the Waleys estates.

By contrast, Fayrwell and Stargrave, the two men returned for Bramber to the Parliament summoned to assemble at Coventry in 1459, were much more obscure, and of considerably lesser standing than the MPs of 1453. It is known, however, that Stargrave was, like them, a member of the Household, albeit a comparatively insignificant one. Different influences were brought to bear on the elections for the Parliament of October 1460, summoned following the victory of the allies of Richard, duke of York, at the battle of Northampton. One of those returned, Erneley, was a retainer of William Fitzalan, earl of Arundel, who sympathized with the new regime. The other, Hussey, a rising lawyer from Grey’s Inn eventually destined to be chief justice of the King’s bench, had earlier been engaged in the service of Humphrey Bourgchier*, nephew to both the duke of York and the duke of Norfolk, Bramber’s lord. On 28 Aug. both he and Bourgchier were nominated by the Yorkist regime to the quorum of the peace in distant Kesteven in Lincolnshire, where Bourgchier had just been elected as one of that county’s knights of the shire. There can be no doubt that Hussey’s election to Parliament by Bramber, as recorded in an indenture ostensibly dated at Chichester that very same day, was intended to provide the Yorkist faction (backed by the Mowbray duke) with reliable supporters in the Commons. Nor can it have been merely a coincidence that another of Mowbray’s Sussex boroughs, New Shoreham (down-river from Bramber) returned in its indenture Richard Spert*, who while the Parliament was in session was recorded as clerk of the peace in Lincolnshire and resident in Bourgchier’s castle at Tattershall. His friendship with Hussey provides another reason for supposing that the two elections were similarly influenced.

The records of the elections, though seemingly uninformative, provide a few clues as to how the six outsiders were intruded as Bramber’s representatives. The return of 1453 took the shape of a short indenture drawn up on 20 Feb. (a fortnight before the Parliament was due to assemble) between the sheriff of Sussex on the one part and the two constables of Bramber on the other. It simply stated that the constables, with the assent of the community of the whole borough, had elected Morley and Lewknor. The identity of the sheriff is significant, for he, Richard Fiennes (soon to be recognized as Lord Dacre) was a kinsman of Lewknor, and a likely supporter of him and his mother in their impending lawsuits. The return of 1459 merely provides the names of Bramber’s MPs on a schedule sent to Chancery by the sheriff. Again, the latter’s identity is significant, for he was Thomas Tresham*, an important servant of the house of Lancaster, who, sitting for Northamptonshire, was to be elected Speaker in the Commons. In 1460 the Bramber election was once more recorded in an indenture, this time made between the sheriff (Robert Fiennes*, the younger brother of Lord Dacre) on one part and, on the other, three named individuals, who with ‘other men of the borough of Bramber, living and residing in the borough’ were said to have elected Erneley and Hussey. As was the case with all the other boroughs of Sussex (but not the city of Chichester), this particular indenture was stated to have been drawn up at the county court in Chichester, and on the very same day (28 Aug. 1460) that the shire elections were held. This was the only occasion in the fifteenth century when indentures for the Sussex boroughs were not attested in the boroughs themselves. It prompts the suspicion that these returns, rather than being finalized at the shire court in Sussex, were compiled in Chancery after the Sussex indenture had been handed in. Such a suspicion is given added weight when it is noted that at least 12 of the 16 men returned for the Sussex boroughs to this particular Parliament were outsiders to the communities they were supposedly representing.7 C219/16/2, 5, 6.