On the western edge of Hampshire at the confluence of the rivers Stour and Avon, Christchurch was a small and impoverished coastal town of very limited importance. In 1538 one commentator noted that it was ‘set in a desolate place, in a very barren country, out and far from all highways, in an angle or a corner, having no woods nor commodious country about it ... and slenderly inhabited’. VCH Hants, v. 88. Economic disadvantage persisted in the seventeenth century: in 1641 a petition was submitted to Parliament by the poor tradesmen in the town, with the support of the mayor and burgesses. Dorset RO, DC/CC/B4/8a-9. Its population was more buoyant, however. The Compton census of 1676 recorded 1,277 inhabitants in the parish, including 57 Catholics and 116 non-conformists. Compton Census, 99.
The town had never received a charter, and was a borough only by prescription. The administration consisted of a mayor, who was sworn in at the court leet by the steward of the manor, and the freemen, or burgesses, who were unelected. Woodward et al. General Hist. Hants, iii. 134. A body called ‘the sixteen’, effectively synonymous with the burgess community, managed the affairs of the priory buildings, which were owned by the town rather than the church authorities. Christchurch Priory, Vestry Min. Bk 1640-1827. Christchurch had been represented at Westminster since 1571, with the right of election lying in the members of the corporation. VCH Hants, v. 83-7. In 1634 30 men were listed as burgesses, but many of them may not have been resident, and it is not clear if they would have been able to vote in elections. Dorset RO, DC/CC/B2/2/1. The poll list for the election to the Long Parliament in 1640 contained the names of only eight burgesses. Dorset RO, DD/CC/F2/9.
Thomas Arundell, 1st Baron Arundell of Wardour, who acquired the manor in 1601, exerted a significant influence on elections, and was occasionally able to secure the return of both Members. HP Commons 1604-1629. Following his death in November 1639, the manor was divided between his six daughters, but the electoral influence passed entirely the husband of one of them, Cecil Calvert, 2nd Baron Baltimore. VCH Hants, v. 93. Both Arundell and Baltimore were Catholics, however, and this perhaps contributed to tensions between them and the local townsmen, at least some of whom inclined towards Protestant godliness.
The first evidence of such tension emerged in the mid-1630s and related to John Hildesley*, an attorney from outside the county who had undertaken legal work for the borough and had been admitted a burgess in 1633. Christchurch Bor. Council, Minute Bk. p. 569; Dorset RO, DC/CC/C/5/2/6, DC/CC/A2/1-2; DC/CC/D/7/10; C8/42/78. According to a petition of April 1637 submitted by Arundell to the privy council, at Michaelmas 1635 Hildesley had ‘procured himself to be unduly chosen portreeve’. Arundell’s steward had refused to admit him at the court leet, but a year later ‘by a private combination with some factious persons’, Hildesley was again selected. Rebuffed again by the steward, he had appeared at the next court ‘and by indirect practice with some of the ... borough, got the mace from the old portreeve and put him out’; he had then ‘taken upon him without authority to exercise the office of mayor’. It was admitted that the portreeve ‘hath of late been called mayor’, but Hildesley’s pretension was without legitimacy, since ‘he inhabiteth near three miles distant from the said borough, and cometh very seldom to [it]’. SP16/352, f. 94; Dorset RO, DC/CC/A/2/1. A counter petition from the inhabitants and commonalty supported Hildesley, however, alleging: that there had always been a mayor, rather than a portreeve; that the incumbent needed only to be an inhabitant of the parish (which Hildesley was); that he had been elected in due form and had been ‘very careful and diligent to preserve the ancient government’ of the borough; that although he had refused to take the oath offered to him, this was ‘because it was not agreeable to the ancient and accustomed oath of the said mayor’; that he had obtained the mace peaceably from the previous incumbent. Dorset RO, DC/CC/A2/2. The dispute was referred to the lord chief justices of king’s bench and common pleas, and Hildesley evidently remained mayor. SP16/355, ff. 62-63v, 162; Christchurch Bor. Council, Minute Bk. p. 73; Dorset RO, DC/CC/D11/4; DC/CC/C2/17.
Divisions between the inhabitants and the lord of the manor may have affected the elections of the 1640s. On 16 December 1639 Baltimore informed the burgesses that, following the previous custom of accepting the lord’s recommendation for one of the places, ‘now I expect and desire that you would at my entreaty make choice of such a person as I shall shortly nominate unto you’. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 26. Two days later he nominated Sir Gregory Fenner. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 29. However, satisfied that Fenner had been accepted, within a week Baltimore attempted to extend his influence over the other seat, informing the mayor of his desire that they ‘choose Mr Thomas Hanham in the second place … of which I doubt not of your willingness, he being your neighbour and well known to you. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 31. This appears to have been Thomas Hanham* of Wimborne in Dorset, who later represented Minehead in the Long Parliament, until ejected for royalism. CCC 942; Vis. Dorset 1623 (Harl. Soc. xx), 50.
Others also attempted to influence the elections. On 10 December 1639, Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland, wrote to the burgesses invoking the customary ‘favour’ done by ‘other ports and seatowns of England ... heretofore’ to those who occupied the position of lord admiral ‘in giving them the nomination of one of the burgesses for those towns’, although the extension of this authority to Christchurch seems to have been unprecedented. Northumberland’s candidate was Edward Nicholas†, clerk of the council and a notable future royalist. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 27. Meanwhile, John Button I*, a wealthy gentleman active, as were several Christchurch burgesses, in the affairs of Lymington, sought to secure a place for a friend, ‘who I assure you is firm in his religion and one that is able and will be ready to do you service’. Button would not name his candidate ‘until I know how I shall fare with you’, and his identity is unknown. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 28. Another candidate was Sir George Hastings†, who resided on the property of Christchurch Priory and who put himself forward in December 1639. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 30. He had represented the borough in 1621 and 1624, and probably stood on his own interest, but he may also have been amenable to the court, as a gentleman of the privy chamber who would later be named as a commissioner of array in 1642. HP Commons 1604-1629.
By late February 1640 the situation had changed. On 25 February Baltimore informed the burgesses that although many of them had consented to return Fenner and Hanham, the latter’s sickness had forced him to withdraw. In his place, Baltimore recommended John Hervey† of Ickworth in Suffolk, another future royalist. He also promised that both Fenner and Harvey would ‘give attendance at their own charge and discharge the said borough from all damage therein’. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 22; HP Commons 1660-1690. However, on 3 March 1640, the day that the precept was issued for the election, Baltimore wrote to the burgesses again. Dorset RO, DC/CC/F2/8. Having understood (mistakenly in the latter case) that Fenner and Hervey had already been elected elsewhere, he now asked them ‘to make choice of’ Sir Arnold Herbert* instead of Fenner ‘and of Sir William Hervey in the second place’. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 23. Sir William Hervey† of Ickworth, John Hervey’s father, had sat in three 1620s Parliaments and, like his son and Herbert, had court connections. HP Commons 1604-1629.
These last-minute substitutions undermined Baltimore’s earlier success. On 10 March one of the burgesses, Edmund Nusham, informed the town’s mayor, Henry Rogers, that although he had promised his voice for Fenner and Hanham, the candidates now proposed by Baltimore were ‘strangers that I do not know’. As a result, he intended to deploy his votes for Sir George Hastings and Henry Tulse I*, a fellow burgess who resided nearby at Hinton Admiral. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 24. At the election, one of Baltimore’s new candidates, Sir Arnold Herbert, was returned, but Nusham’s reluctance to support ‘strangers’ may have been shared by some of the other burgesses: Tulse was chosen for the second place. Dorset RO, DC/CC/F1/8; C219/42ii/144.
The autumn elections of 1640 were complicated by rival attempts to exercise the influence of the lord of the manor. On 29 September Baltimore requested that the borough return Matthew Davies*, a lawyer from Shaftesbury, undertaking that ‘he shall put your borough to no charge for the said employment’. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 35. By the middle of October the burgesses had received another letter of recommendation, from Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke, who informed them that his ‘very worthy friend and cousin Mr William Arundel’ had ‘transferred over to’ him ‘to nominate in his right such fit men for burgesses for your said town as I should think fit’. Accordingly the earl proposed his ‘very good lord and cousin’, Philip Sidney*, Viscount Lisle, and another ‘cousin’, one Henry Wroughton. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 36.
This was met with some disdain within the borough. On 26 October the new mayor, John Kemp, a linen draper, informed Pembroke that ‘the major part of our corporation’ had already ‘engaged’ themselves to elect Tulse and Davies. Tulse, he pointed out, was a local man, and the sitting Member, while Davies was recommended by Lord Baltimore, whom the town conceived to be lord of the borough. Furthermore, ‘Mr William Arundel is altogether unknown to us, neither did we ever hear (till now) that he pretended any right to the manor of Christchurch’. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 37. This prompted Arundel himself – presumably the brother of Thomas Arundell, 2nd Baron Arundell, and of the six co-heiresses – to write asserting not only that he also had a claim to the manor but that ‘I shall and do presume my own to be the best (as precedent before all others) until the law have otherwise decided it’. He warned the burgesses
to beware lest you give way that any pretended whatsoever (especially the Lord Baltimore who is likeliest to be most bold though with least reason) should usurp the privilege of naming the burgesses belonging to your town, and I desire you by these to take notice that I have given my right and interest to the lord chamberlain [i.e. Pembroke]. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 38.
Notwithstanding this, Pembroke’s attempt to usurp the electoral patronage at Christchurch failed. On 26 October the town returned Henry Tulse and Matthew Davies. Dorset RO, DC/CC/F1/9; C219/43/164. The poll list, although somewhat confusing, appears to reveal that, in voting for the first place, Tulse secured five votes to Davies’ three, while Wroughton found no support. For the second seat, Davies secured five votes and Wroughton three, which meant that Tulse and Davies were elected. Both the latter were favoured by the most prominent burgesses, including John Hildesley, John Kemp and Henry Rogers. Dorset RO, DC/CC/F2/9. The poll list makes no mention of Lord Lisle, suggesting that he withdrew before the election. Subsequently, in what appears to have been an attempt to undermine the power of men like Baltimore and Pembroke, the corporation decided that no-one could be elected as a Member for the borough ‘but such as shall before his election be a sworn burgess of this borough’ (13 Feb. 1643). Christchurch Bor. Council, Min. Bk. p. 558.
During the first civil war Christchurch was seized by the royalists. They held the town until April 1644, when forces under Sir William Waller* came to its relief as part of a wider campaign in the region, taking between 2-400 prisoners and up to 100 horse. CSP Dom. 1644, p. 102; A True Discovery of the Great and Glorious Victory (1644, E.42.21); HMC Portland, iii. 110; HMC 7th Rep. 447. Thereafter, the Committee of Both Kingdoms took steps to secure the town, with the help of 2-300 men from the Isle of Wight, and by ordering Lieutenant-general Sir Thomas Middleton* to defend the town against those royalist forces still in the area. Its strategic importance lay not in its intrinsic value as a port or a stronghold, but as a borough which could assist in the defence of more important local towns, such as Poole, only a few miles to the west in Dorset. CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 256, 258, 272-3; Bodl. Tanner 62, f. 524.
On 25 October 1645 a writ was ordered for a recruiter election at Christchurch. CJ iv. 322a. Tulse had died in 1642 and Davies had been removed from Parliament in March 1643 for adhering to the royalist cause, so a poll had probably been long anticipated. PROB6/18, f. 159; CJ iii. 4b. In mid June John Kemp*, a prominent former MP for Lymington who had been admitted a burgess in 1641 and who is not to be confused with the former mayor, wrote to the current mayor, again John Hildesley (husband of Tulse’s widow and a county committee-man), asking him to keep a place open for him. Dorset RO, DC/CC/D7/10; DC/CC/C5/2/7. Perhaps owing to his property interests across Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, Kemp did not know
how I shall dispose of myself for the present, but if I should be far from hence, at the time of your election of burgesses for the Parliament, I hope you will not otherwise dispose of it until my friends have time to send to me, for gentlemen, there can be no man more willing to serve you than I. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 39.
By the first week of November, however, Kemp had heard that John Lisle*, one of the most powerful and controversial parliamentarians in the county, had arrived with an election writ and, as Kemp informed Hildesley, ‘that he doth intend to propound another to you in my place’. Kemp trusted that he had his friend’s ‘affections so much already that I shall not need to put you in mind of your promise’, but explained that, while he was ‘not ambitious of the place’, he would ‘take it for the greatest dishonour that could be put upon me, to be undermined by him who is my professed enemy’. He invited Hildesley to recall how, ‘at the beginning of these unhappy times’ (probably when control of the town was contested between parliamentarians and royalists) Lisle ‘came into the town to procure voices against me even then when I was in arms amongst you and ready to venture my life for you’. The election at Christchurch, said Kemp
ought to be free and I am confident what persuasions or threats may be used by any man, you will discharge the hearts of honest men, if there be any that you have a mind to prefer that you think fitter and more worthy than myself, I should be willing to subscribe so it be not by Lisle means. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 46.
In reply, Hildesley reassured Kemp that the town would not be persuaded to select another man, being resolved to ‘stand firm for you according to our former promises, and no persuasions or threats shall cause any alterations’. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 42.
The identity of the candidate proposed by John Lisle is unknown, but there was at least one other man who initially expressed an interest in securing one of the seats. On 10 November John Bulkeley* wrote to the mayor of Christchurch to say that he would not, after all, require a place, having been chosen for Newtown in the Isle of Wight. He recommended instead Colonel Richard Edwards*, a Bedfordshire man who was brother-in-law to Hampshire MP Richard Whithed I*, and who was a burgess of the town by July 1641. Bulkeley hoped that no ‘workings whatsoever’ would obstruct Edwards’ candidature, for ‘I am you cannot have an honester nor abler man’. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 41; Dorset RO, DC/CC/B4/10.
Even after Bulkeley’s withdrawal from the election, Kemp worried about his own prospects. On 12 November he informed the mayor and burgesses of ‘an unexpected occasion which forces me (very unwillingly) to go for London’, but assured them that his ‘stay (God willing) shall be very short’. If the election writ arrived in the meantime, he requested that they alert his ‘brother Bromfield in Southampton’, who had been lined up ‘to be at the election and to give you such entertainment as if I my self were there’. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 43. When, following the issue on 21 November of the precept for the election, Kemp’s other ally John Hildesley found that he too might be absent, he asked the borough to ‘proceed to the election of Mr Kemp and Colonel Edwards according to your promise’. Dorset RO, DC/CC/F2/10; C231/6, p. 31; Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 44.
Whatever the pressures applied by Lisle or others, Kemp and Edwards secured the two seats on 25 November, the day on which they had both requested the election to be held. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, no. 45; Dorset RO, DC/CC/F1/10; C219/43/166. Both pledged to fulfil their duties at their own charge and without claiming expenses. Dorset RO, DC/CC/F3/1. In the months which followed, it was Kemp who appears to have taken the greater interest in the town’s affairs, writing a number of letters to the burgesses explaining his activities on their behalf at committees, including his attempts to secure relief for those townsmen who had suffered as a result of the billeting of troops. Christchurch Bor. Council, Old Letters, nos. 40, 47, 48. Meanwhile, Kemp the draper remained active within the borough administration into the 1650s, participating in a campaign to ensure that no ‘strangers’ were elected to civic office (1653) and serving again as mayor (1653-4). Dorset RO, DC/CC/C2/18, DC/CC/A3/1, DC/CC/D5/6.
Christchurch was disenfranchised during the Nominated and first two protectorate Parliaments. It was restored as a parliamentary borough in 1659. On that occasion the town chose John Bulkeley, who had turned down the chance of representing the borough in 1645, and Henry Tulse II*, son of the man returned in 1640 and stepson of John Hildesley. Christchurch Bor. Council, Min. Bk. p. 565. On this occasion, there appears to have been none of the politicking which surrounded earlier elections, and both men appear to have been returned unopposed. Hildesley and Tulse II were elected to the Convention, and the latter was twice returned after the Restoration, when the question of the patronage rights of the lord of the manor over the assertive burgesses re-emerged. HP Commons 1660-1690.
