Bramber lay four miles from the sea on the west bank of the River Adur, and on the edge of a tidal marsh. A Norman settlement, it was overshadowed by two neighbouring boroughs, Steyning, a mile to the north west, and Shoreham, four miles to the south east. The town’s castle had ceased to be occupied by the early sixteenth century; its role as a port was undermined by both its inaccessibility and the rise of Shoreham, such that only local barge trade remained; and the market had lapsed by 1600. VCH Suss. vi, pt. 1, 201-10. The decline into an unimportant town with an economy revolving around a mixture of arable and pasture agriculture was reflected in the size of the population. No more than 30 names were recorded in the hearth tax assessments in the 1660s, and only 72 adults, all of them conformists, appeared in the Compton census of 1676. E179/258/14, ff. 44v-5; E179/368/1; Compton Census, 145. In 1637, when Sussex towns like Chichester, Horsham and Lewes were each expected to pay over £60 for Ship Money, just £3 was expected from Bramber. CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 543.
The manor of Bramber belonged to the Howard family, having been regained in 1604 by Thomas Howard, 14th or 21st earl of Arundel, but their influence apparently remained slight. The advowson was owned by Magdalen College, Oxford, who generally presented college members or fellows to the living. VCH Suss. vi, pt. 1, 5; Add. 5685, f. 173; Add. 39330, ff. 13-18; HP Commons 1604-1629. A borough by prescription, the town was governed by a constable, who acted as the returning officer, and who was chosen annually by the steward at a court leet, from two names proposed by the jury and the retiring constable. The right of election lay in the inhabitants. VCH Suss. vi, pt. 1, 211.
In the spring elections of 1640 Bramber initially returned Sir Thomas Bowyer and James Cranfield, Lord Cranfield, eldest son of Lionel Cranfield†, 1st earl of Middlesex, and sometime lord treasurer. Bowyer, experienced in local administration and with many friends among the west Sussex gentry, had sat for Bramber in every Parliament since 1621. HP Commons 1604-1629. Cranfield, still a minor, possibly owed his election to his father’s friend Edward Sackville†, 4th earl of Dorset. He was also returned for Liverpool, however, and on 23 April opted to sit for the Lancashire seat, following which a new writ was issued (25 Apr.). CJ ii. 9b; C231/5, p. 381.
In the ensuing by-election there were two candidates, Sir John Suckling, who was Cranfield’s cousin, and Sir Edward Bishoppe*. An extravagant, controversial courtier and a friend of the queen, Suckling probably also stood with backing from the earl of Dorset, who had sought unsuccessfully to assist him in securing a seat at Great Yarmouth. HMC 9th Rep. pt. 1, 311-12. Bishoppe, who had represented Steyning in 1626, also had a sullied reputation, having been involved in a murder in 1627, as well as having been a Ship-Money sheriff in the 1630s. Such factors may have contributed to Suckling’s success in securing the seat on 30 April, but Bishoppe disputed the election. HMC 4th Rep. 25. He petitioned that he had secured a promise in advance from ‘all the inhabitants’ that, should Cranfield decline the seat, they would return him instead, and alleged that, when the new writ was issued, Suckling used ‘undue means’ to obtain it, and ‘with some powerful letters obtained in his favour for election, repaired to the said town, and, of his own authority, without the sheriff, drew the said burgesses together’. When the voters still declared their intention to return Bishoppe, Suckling apparently used ‘threatening speeches to the better sort and offered money and rewards to the meaner sort’, and left the town’s minister, Laurence Davenport, a former fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford to complete the pressure. PA, Main Pprs. 2 May 1640; Procs. Short Parl. 288-9; HMC 4th Rep. 25; Add. 64121, ff. 1-5; Al. Ox. (Davenport); VCH Suss. vi, pt. 1, 213. This, according to Bishoppe, swung the electorate in Suckling’s favour.
Bishoppe’s petition was read on 2 May 1640, the same day that Suckling spoke in favour of supplying the king before considering grievances. The speech prompted future opposition leader John Pym to move that ‘one that comes in so corruptly should not sit so long’. The Commons referred the petition to a committee, to which Sir Thomas Bowyer was first named, but no decision appears to have been reached before the Parliament was dissolved on 5 May 1640, enabling Suckling to retain his place for the duration of the session. Aston’s Diary, 120; CJ ii. 18b; PA, Main Pprs. 2 May 1640; Procs. Short Parl. 288-9.
In the autumn of 1640, Bowyer was re-elected. An indenture of 13 October named Arthur Onslow in second place, but another of 19 October named only Sir Edward Bishoppe. Accusations of improper return were attached to both Bishoppe and the under-aged Onslow, who was plausibly asserted to draw his support from the earl of Arundel, a close friend of his father, Sir Richard Onslow*. HMC 14th Rep. IX, 483. The dispute was referred to the privileges committee, which heard claims that the application of the franchise had traditionally been broad, including not just householders but also ‘inmates’ who lodged with or leased shops from them. Verney, Notes, 4. Following a report from John Maynard on 16 December, Bishoppe was found guilty of offering £10 to be elected; his election was made void, and he was declared incapable of sitting again in that Parliament, although a motion that he should be sent for as a delinquent was rejected. Nevertheless, his servant, John Bramsden, was ordered to appear at the bar of the House, ‘to answer his abusing the committee with many falsities’. On the recommendation of the committee, Onslow’s election was also declared void, although no reason was given. D’Ewes (N), 160; Northcote Note Bk. 70; CJ ii. 51b. While his age might have been a factor, following the issue of a new writ on 17 December, Onslow secured election, this time apparently without opposition. C231/5, p. 418.
On 23 November 1642 Sir Thomas Bowyer was disabled from sitting further, following revelations about his role in the seizure of Chichester for the king. Add. 18777, f. 68v; CJ ii. 860b. Bramber also saw military action during the civil war, and in December 1643 was one of the strategic points of defence against the eastward movement of royalist forces under Sir Ralph Hopton*. A parliamentarian officer who played a significant part in the defence of the town that year was Colonel James Temple*, who did so ‘to the wonder of all the country’. Blaauw, ‘Passages of the Civil War in Suss.’, 57-60; Thomas-Stanford, Suss. in Great Civil War, 73-81; F. Cheynell, Chillingworthi Novissima (1644), sig. B2v (E.36.7); E. Suss. RO, Frewen 4223, f. 72; Bodl. Dep.C.169/36; Perfect Diurnall no. 21 (11-18 Dec. 1643), 164-6 (E.252.11). Following the issue of a writ on 12 September 1645 for a by-election to replace Bowyer, within four weeks Temple was returned and, although he was well connected both at Westminster and in Sussex, where he had spent at least part of his life, his military service probably counted for much. CJ iv. 272b; Perfect Passages no. 51 (8-15 Oct. 1645), 404 (E.266.2). He had taken his seat by 29 October, when he signed the Solemn League and Covenant. CJ iv. 326a. While Arthur Onslow did not sit after Pride’s Purge (6 Dec. 1648), Temple was one of the king’s judges at his trial in 1649, signed the death warrant, and continued to sit for the duration of the Rump.
Bramber was disenfranchised by the terms of the Instrument of Government. It was restored as a borough for the 1659 Parliament, but was accorded only one Member. John Fagge*, whose estate lay at Wiston, about seven miles to the north west, and who was an ally of leading Sussex republican Harbert Morley*, could no longer guarantee return as a knight of the shire, and as an insurance policy sought election not only at Bramber but also at Horsham and Rye. E. Suss. RO, Rye 47/157/7. Successful in all three boroughs as well as the county, he took his seat in the Commons before having chosen which to represent. CJ vii. 594b, 597b. On 11 February, with the Horsham election already declared void, Fagge opted to sit for the county, whereupon a writ was also issued for a poll at Bramber. CJ vii. 601a, 602a; Burton’s Diary, iii. 203; Mercurius Politicus no. 553 (3-10 Feb. 1659), 222-3 (E.761.13); no. 554 (10-17 Feb. 1659), 228 (E.761.15). It appears that John Byne*, another local man, was elected, although he made no recorded impact on Parliament’s proceedings. Fagge, who had witnessed his marriage settlement in December 1656, may have been behind his return, but a majority of Byne’s friends and family were royalist, in sympathy if not necessarily in action, and thus he may have owed his election to a tacit coalition of anti-protectorate interests. E. Suss. RO, Glynde MSS 173-4; Notes IPMs Suss. 124.
