PECKHAM, Henry (1615-73), of Chichester, Suss. and the Middle Temple, London.

The Peckham family established itself in Sussex in the late sixteenth century, with the purchase in 1584 of the manor of East Hampnett, but Henry Peckham’s father was the head of a cadet branch, based a few miles south at Aldingbourne, and lacking both status and wealth.26Vis. Suss. (Harl. Soc. liii), 157; Berry, Suss. Pedigrees, 58-9. Despite receiving a legacy in 1629 from his uncle, Robert Peckham of Petworth, Henry was forced to make a career in the law.27Add. 39415A, f. 21v. From Magdalen Hall, Oxford, Peckham entered the Middle Temple in 1634, bound with William Sandham, another Sussex man. Initially, he displayed little enthusiasm for his studies: between 1635 and 1638 he was repeatedly fined for failing to attend readings. However, from October 1639 he shared chambers with Thomas Payne, after the departure of one John Bowyer. Payne (of Petworth, Sussex) may have been a kinsman, and was certainly a business associate of Robert Peckham, while Bowyer was the son of Sir Thomas Bowyer*, another business colleague of both Peckham and Payne. In 1641 Peckham was called to the bar.28MTR, ii. 827, 833, 840, 847, 868, 885, 908, 937; iii. 1124, 1244; Acts Dean and Chapter Chichester, 1545–1642, 259.

Peckham’s career was dominated by the affairs of Chichester, the city near his birthplace which he would represent five times at Westminster, and which he would serve as recorder for nearly 20 years. The local gentry provided him with enduring social ties. As early as June 1636, he had been named beside two such men – Sir William Forde and Sir William Morley* – to implement orders relating to the town’s tobacco patentees.29Bodl. Bankes 16, f. 131. Although Peckham would remain close to Morley and his heirs until the 1670s, he does not appear to have followed the latter’s lead by participating in the royalist attempt to seize Chichester for the king in the autumn of 1642. However, the fact that parliamentarian grandees in the county did not appear to trust him sufficiently to include him on commissions during the first civil war suggests that his sympathies lay with the royalist cause. Peckham’s conspicuous absence from the records mirrors that of suspected royalist Henry Goringe*, whose daughter he married in May 1644.

One of two Henry Peckhams named as commissioners for sewers in July 1645, in June 1647 the future MP was added to the commission of the peace.30C181/f. 257v; C231/6, p. 92. The appointment reflected a royalist resurgence in the county, which also saw the rehabilitation of leading cavaliers, including Sir William Morley* and Thomas Middleton*. Having been named to the bench, Peckham attended the quarter sessions regularly until January 1649, after which, predictably, he was removed by the new republican regime.31Suss. QSOB, 1642-1649, pp. xxxix, 131, 139, 149, 157, 162. He remained actively locally, however, serving as steward to John Beauchamp at Cackham or Cakeham in East Wittering, near the entrance to Chichester harbour, between 1648 and 1656.32W. Suss. RO, Add. MSS 12859-12862.

Like many of those in the county opposed to the new commonwealth, Peckham was also prepared to participate in public life during the 1650s, doubtless as a means of expressing his opposition, and of undermining the policies of the Cromwellian government. Having rejoined the commission of the peace in March 1655, until the Restoration he was assiduous in his attendance at the quarter sessions.33E. Suss. RO, QO/EW3, ff. 1, 4v, 6v, 10, 15, 26v, 31v, 37v, 40, 45, 49, 55v, 59, 63, 70v, 73, 79. In September 1654 Peckham was returned to Parliament for the first time, as burgess for Chichester, which had only one seat under the terms of the Instrument of Government. In these elections the interests of royalists, purged Presbyterians, and disillusioned Rumpers combined to defeat the Cromwellian ‘court’ interest.

Peckham was named to six committees between 5 September and 3 November 1654, including the large committee for privileges.34CJ vii. 366b. Three appointments were related to aspects of legal reform, although there is no evidence as to what stance he adopted.35CJ vii. 368a, 378b, 381b. Others included the committee investigating petitions regarding the controversial project of William Russell*, 5th earl of Bedford, for the draining of the fens.36CJ vii. 380a. After 3 November Peckham disappeared from the Journal.

Peckham was appointed a master in chancery in May 1655, and two months later recorder of Chichester, a post he held until his death.37C216/2/84; W. Suss. RO, Chichester N/19, N/21. In January 1656 he spearheaded a petition to the protector from the city requesting that he and the rest of the corporation be appointed governors of the hospital of St Mary’s, which had been without an administration since the abolition of the cathedral’s dean and chapter. When the petition was referred to Harbert Morley* and his close ally William Hay*, they reported in Peckham’s favour. Although it is unclear whether this was officially ratified, the preparedness of such radicals to endorse him testifies to the co-operation between different opponents of the protectorate in Sussex.38CSP Dom. 1655-6, pp. 95-6; SP18/123, ff. 25-7.

Peckham was returned to the second protectorate Parliament only to be excluded (17 Sept.), under the terms of the 21st article of the Instrument of Government.39C219/45i. Harbert Morley, John Fagge*, Sir Thomas Rivers* and Samuel Gott* suffered the same fate.40SP18/130, f. 46; OPH xxi. 3-23; Bodl. Tanner 52, f. 156. Peckham signed the declaration of the excluded members, led by Sir Arthur Hesilrige*, Thomas Scot I*, and Harbert Morley, but was readmitted to Westminster, presumably because the council of state were persuaded that he posed no serious threat.41Whitelocke, Memorials (1853), iv. 274-8. He was in attendance by 3 November, when he was named to a committee considering the bill for taking away purveyance.42CJ vii. 449b.

Peckham was named to only five more committees during the session. This time he received only one which was related to law reform – that arising from the case of Rodney versus Cole (22 Nov.).43CJ vii. 457b. Having been in the previous Parliament appointed to consider a petition from William Craven, 1st Baron Craven, the royalist financier who had been a vital member of the court of Elizabeth, queen of Bohemia, at The Hague, on 2 December 1656 he was added to committee regarding Drury House, Craven’s home, suggesting some link with the peer or his property interests.44CJ vii. 381a, 463b. His last appointment (9 May 1657) concerned the bill for preventing building work in London.45CJ vii. 531b. His other two appointments concerned the settlement of estates, notably that of the deceased Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke, whose executors sought to limit liability for his debts incurred in the public interest.46CJ vii. 488a, 528b. In his only recorded speech in Parliament (30 Apr. 1657), Peckham participated in debate on this matter, aligning himself with Sir Richard Onslow* and against prominent members of the protectoral court like Lord Broghill (Roger Boyle*), Walter Strickland*, Lord Strickland, and William Lenthall*, master of the rolls, who wanted legal proceedings against the executors dropped.47Burton Diary, ii. 82. In so doing, he set himself against Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland, one of the executors, and the most powerful man in Sussex. There is no indication that Peckham returned to Westminster for the brief second session of the Parliament.

Peckham’s allegiance to the royalist cause is revealed both through the list of sympathisers drawn up by Roger Whitely† in 1658, and through Peckham’s network of friends and employers.48Bodl. Eng. hist. e. 309, p. 40. In the late 1650s Peckham was named as an overseer of the will of his longstanding friend, Sir William Morley, and trustee of the manor of Tangmere, which was used to provide portions for Morley’s daughters. Together with another arch-royalist from the Chichester area, Sir Edward Forde, Peckham was still working on behalf of the Morley family until 1670.49W. Suss. RO, Goodwood MSS E47, E313-14, E452, E455-7; Add. MSS 13468-9, 13471; PAR166/6/2, 5. He also remained close to another royalist, his brother-in-law, Henry Goring†, with whom he leased Roughton Manor (for £2,868) in 1655.50W. Suss. RO, Add. MS 20507. From 1656 he was employed as steward to George Berkeley, 8th Baron Berkeley, and (after 1658) to his son, George Berkeley*, the 9th Baron, at their Bosham estate.51Preston Manor, Brighton, Thomas-Stanford Coll., WS/AU/2; W. Suss. RO, Add. MSS 12476, 12672. The former had been one of the seven Presbyterian peers impeached in 1647 in the wake of the counter-revolution which sought to engineer the return of the king, while the latter actively worked towards the return of Charles II in 1660.

Alongside others with royalist sympathies, Peckham was returned to Richard Cromwell’s Parliament in 1659, although he appears to have made no impression whatsoever during the three-month session. He was only marginally more active during the Convention Parliament, to which he was returned in April 1660 – again as Member for Chichester.52CJ viii. 2, 27, 106, 118, 136, 177, 185. However, in May he signed the humble address from Sussex welcoming the Restoration.53SP29/1, f. 89.

Peckham continued to sit for Chichester until his death in 1673. Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, considered him a Presbyterian, to be managed by his old friend Sir Richard Onslow*, but he was only moderately active in the Commons.54Bodl. Carte 81, ff. 74-7; HP Commons 1660-1690. He evidently preferred the county bench, which he attended zealously through the 1660s.55E. Suss. RO, QO/EW4, ff. 6, 17, 25v, 33, 42v, 44, 51, 57v, 67, 74v, 80; QO/EW5, ff. 9, 14v, 20v, 30, 37, 44, 52v, 57, 62, 70v, 76, 81, 88v, 94v, 104, 117v, 126. Nevertheless, in his last years he was clearly regarded as a supporter of the court party.56A. Browning, Thomas Osborne, Earl of Danby (1951), iii. 42.

In contrast, Peckham excelled in his legal career, which appears to have taken off after 1655, when he was appointed a master in chancery. His renewed enthusiasm was symbolised by the building work which he undertook on his chambers after 1658, and by his appointment as recorder of Portsmouth (1658) as well as of Chichester. By 1661 he had added a third recordship (Newport, Isle of Wight), and in June 1662, shortly after being conferred with a knighthood, he was appointed steward of his inn. By October 1663 he had been called to the bench, and following his lectures as reader (Aug. 1669), Peckham was nominated as a serjeant at law, with the support of Viscount Montague, one of the most prominent Catholics in Sussex, and the earl of Berkeley, his old employer.57MTR iii. 1124, 1177, 1189, 1224, 1229, 1231, 1238, 1242, 1244; Add. 39482, f. 189. The occasion was marked by particularly ostentatious feasting.58Diary of John Evelyn ed. de Beer, iii. 536-7.

Mirroring his success as a lawyer, Peckham augmented both his wealth and his estate.59W. Suss. RO, Goodwood MSS, E313-14, E455-7; PAR166/6/2; Suss. Manors, ii. i. 266: ii. 367, 429; Suss. Arch. Coll. liv. 261. When he drew up his will (28 Feb. 1673), he claimed to have been blessed with an estate far beyond his expectation, and was able to leave a total of £3,100 for marriage portions for his three daughters. The will was proved on 16 June, but his executors and trustees were still dealing with aspects of the estate ten years later.60PROB11/342/265; W. Suss. RO, Add. MSS 3969, 3972–5, 3977–9, 12743. Peckham’s son Henry (d. 1686) was mayor of Chichester in 1681 and 1686, but no others in the family sat in Parliament.61W. Suss. RO, Add. MS 20508.