PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY
The PARLIAMENTARY HISTORY of the city
forms perhaps the most important part of the story
of Chichester during the 18th and 19th centuries.
The list of members of Parliament begins in 1295
with William de Eartham and Clement de Adsdean,
two well-known citizens. William de Eartham had
apparently been reeve in 1279, (fn. 1) bailiff in 1283, (fn. 2)
mayor in 1290, and burgess in 1295; (fn. 3) in 1296 he
paid £4 14s. 5d. towards a subsidy, his payment being
the largest contribution. (fn. 4) Clement de Adsdean
was perhaps the son of Thomas de Adsdean, reeve of
Chichester in 1260; (fn. 5) he was assessed at only 4s. 4d., (fn. 6)
and he and Eartham were jurors on the Inquisition
post mortem of the Earl of Cornwall in 1300; (fn. 7) he
acted as burgess again in 1311, apparently in two
parliaments.
Throughout the 14th century most of the members
appear to have been drawn from the merchant class,
and to have had some direct connexion with the
administration of trade. Between 1334 and 1366,
they included four who had acted as controllers of
customs, two who had been in charge of tronage,
three deputy-butlers, one collector of 2s. per tun on
wine, and one concerned with pesage of wools.
Between them they served at least thirty-seven times;
that is, that on an average one or other of these nine
'official' citizens must have been in office in each
Parliament. Only one of them is known to have
served as mayor, but the names of mayors are scanty
for the 14th century. In one case, in 1346, father and
son, both John Wyn, seem to have served as burgesses
in the same Parliament. John Sherer appears to have
been returned twelve times between 1379 and 1394.
Although the law providing that members for
boroughs should be resident burgesses was not
strictly enforced, most of the members for Chichester
from the end of the 14th century were citizens,
judging from their names. The Poll Tax returns of
1380 (4 Richard II) include six persons whose names
appear as members, some of whom had four or five
servants. Several members had property and business
connexions in London. John Hilly, who was Mayor
of Chichester in 1452, sat seven times between 1427
and 1453. (fn. 8) It was during his mayoralty that the city
received the important charter of 1451 (q.v.).
In the 16th century the representation of the city
began to feel the effects of outside influence. Unfortunately the records are very incomplete. There is a
hint of political feeling in a Star Chamber case of
1540, which reports considerable intrigue as to the
election of a mayor. The object of the intrigue
seems to have been to secure the election of Robert
Bowyer (M.P. in 1529) as mayor, because he would be
favourable to the 'poore commons of Chichester.' (fn. 9)
In 1572, however, a sharp change seems to have
occurred. The two representatives of the city were
Valentine Dale, LL.D., and Richard Lewknor, of the
Middle Temple, (fn. 10) both of whom continued to represent the city until 1592. Dale was Master of the
Court of Requests in 1588, and Lewknor in the same
year is noted as Recorder of Chichester. It is during
this period that the city obtained two Acts of Parliament, (fn. 11) one for paving the city, (fn. 12) the other for
bringing the harbour by a new cut to the suburb of
the city. (fn. 13)
Possibly a certain amount of influence was brought
to bear on the Chichester elections by the appointment
of the Earl of Arundel as high steward under the
charter of James I in 1618. This influence no doubt
was lost during the disturbed conditions of the Civil
War and Commonwealth periods. After the Restoration, the patronage became more extensively exercised
and passed to the owners of Petworth and Goodwood.
The Earls of Northumberland
at Petworth, as lords lieutenant of the county and near
neighbours of the city, could
not fail to have an influence.
This influence increased after
the marriage of Charles, Duke
of Somerset, with Elizabeth,
heiress of Josceline Percy, last
Earl of Northumberland.
Somerset was appointed high
steward of Chichester by the
charter of James II in 1685. (fn. 14)
He died in 1748 and Charles
Lennox, second Duke of Richmond, of Goodwood House,
was appointed high steward
in his place. As Earl of
March, the Duke had sat as
member for Chichester. (fn. 15) The
office of high steward was held by the Dukes of Richmond down to the death of the fifth duke (d. 1860),
when the Reform Act had largely destroyed parliamentary patronage.
Lennox, Duke of Richmond. Quarterly: 1 and 4, France quartering England; 2, Scotland; 3, Ireland, all within a border gobony argent and gules charged with eight roses gules and over all a scutcheon gules three buckles or.
By the distribution of favours and the grant of
many substantial benefits to the city, the Dukes of
Richmond obtained control over the Common Council.
According to the Municipal Corporations Report of
1835 the Lennox family had been connected with the
corporation as far back as the corporation books went.
The head of the family had been for several generations
high steward, and in one instance served as mayor.
'Occasionally,' the report adds, 'he has been asked
whom he wished to be elected into the Common
Council; when this has not been done, care has been
taken not to appoint anyone who was not considered
likely to support the family influence.' There were
at the time of this report five members of the family
in the corporation: the duke was high steward, one
brother was bailiff, and two others common councillors. (fn. 16)
According to the contention of one party in the
city the parliamentary franchise was in the citizens,
represented by the Common Council and the freemen,
who were either relatives of the chief citizens or
eminent persons, unconnected with the city, admitted
to the freedom of the merchant gild, as a compliment.
The other party maintained that the franchise was
in the Common Council, freemen and commonalty.
The mayor was elected by the Common Council, but
in effect was the nominee of the high steward, (fn. 17) and
as he was the returning officer, it was to his interest
and that of his patron to maintain the city as a close
borough. This state of affairs led to frequent disputes and contested elections. In 1660, however,
the mayor, evidently a roundhead and leader of the
popular party, returned William Cawley, the regicide,
to the Convention Parliament by the votes of the freemen only. John Farrington, the other candidate, the
number of members having been temporarily reduced
by Parliament to one, declared that the mayor had
refused the votes of the commonalty which had been
tendered for him. The Committee reported that the
commonalty of the said borough, together with the
free citizens, had the right of election, and that John
Farrington, gentleman, had been accordingly duly
elected, and ought to sit. The Mayor of Chichester,
for his refusal to regard ancient precedents and the
advice of the recorder, was committed to the custody
of the serjeant-at-arms and obliged to amend his
return; he was then called to the Bar of the House,
and, kneeling there, received a reprimand from the
Speaker, and was returned to custody: three days
later, however, he was set at liberty. (fn. 18)
To overcome the difficulty of obtaining the return
of the candidates of their patron which this decision
entailed, the mayors from time to time nominated
numerous freemen who were elected by the common
council. In 1673 and 1689 there were further disputed elections, in the latter case with an accusation
of bribery and ill practices. Disputes continued
throughout the reign of William and Mary, and
Queen Anne; the mayor is said to have 'managed'
both the polling and the scrutiny. In 1710 it was
asserted in a petition that the mayor returned two
members, upon polling four or five persons only,
'although there are as many Hundreds who have
Right to vote.' Only four days' notice of the election
had been given. (fn. 19)
In July 1707 a curious agreement (fn. 20) was made
between whigs and tories for preserving the peace of
the city of Chichester. Sir Richard Farrington and
John Farrington, Esq., of South Street, on behalf
of the whigs, and Sir John Miller of Lavant and
Captain Thomas Carr of the Pallant, on behalf of the
tories, agreed that at an election for Parliament each
party was to nominate one candidate only, and the
two thus nominated were to be elected by consent of
both parties. Alternate nominations of mayors,
bailiffs, and high constables, as well as churchwardens
and overseers, assessors and collectors of taxation
were also agreed. The citizens, however, immediately nominated an independent candidate, and by
1713 seem to have broken away entirely from the
bargain.
In 1722 Charles Lennox, Earl of March, represented
the city, and in 1761 Lord George Henry Lennox
was member. Throughout the latter part of the
18th century, the Dukes of Richmond regularly
nominated one member, and the independent party
nominated the other. (fn. 21) In 1782 (fn. 22) a notable dispute
arose as to the contested election between Bryan
Edwards, an independent candidate, and the Hon.
Percy Wyndham, the brother of the Earl of Egremont,
standing under the Richmond auspices. Edwards
secured 239 votes, and Wyndham 247. Edwards and
several of the residents of the city presented a petition,
complaining of the mayor's action in admitting the
illegal votes of many non-residents, styling themselves
freemen of the city, 'of whom fifteen had polled.'
Edwards shortly afterwards withdrew his petition,
but brought an action in the King's Bench as to 'the
right of the corporation to admit non-residents to the
honorary freedom of the gild or corporation.' The Court
of King's Bench, two years later, 'under the influence
of ignorance,' decided in favour of the corporation. (fn. 23)
The history of this election is extremely confused,
and the decision of the King's Bench has not been
traced. (fn. 24) In the city Minute Books, however, under
the date 13 March 1782, seven freemen are noted as
having been personally admitted to the freedom of
the merchant gild, and an entry follows, in a hand
different from that of any other minute, recording that
the Hon. Percy Charles Wyndham on the 11th, 12th
and 13th days of March was elected and declared in
the Gildhall, to serve for the city for the present
Parliament. It seems impossible not to connect these
seven personal admissions with Wyndham's majority
of eight. It was perhaps after this election that
careful and separate records (fn. 25) were kept of the
meetings of the Common Council at which admissions
were made to the offices of portreeve and customer
of the city, and to the freedom of the city, in the form
of admission to the merchant gild. These records
run from 1784 to August 1830, when they were
inspected; they were resumed in March 1835 to
October 1835. Apart from freemen, the franchise
appears to have been on a scot and lot basis, and some
ratepayers appear on the books for stables or pigsties
in their fathers' gardens. In 1835 the citizens paying
scot and lot numbered 886. (fn. 26) The inhabitants of
the Close had only the county franchise. It is
interesting to note that in November 1789 William
Pitt, Chancellor of His Majesty's Exchequer, was
admitted to the freedom of the merchant gild, but
'William Pitt being absent, swearing of him was
postponed.'
The influence of the Lennox family continued into
the 19th century to the advantage of the city and
satisfaction of the family. From 1812 until the
Reform Act of 1868, when the representation of
the city was reduced to a single member, one of the
burgesses was usually drawn from that family. After
the Act of 1868, Lord Henry G. C. Gordon Lennox,
who had held the seat since 1845, continued to
represent the city as its only member until 1885, and
his nephew Lord Walter Charles Lennox from 1888
to 1894. Under the Representation of the People
Act of 1918 Chichester city was merged into the
Chichester division of the county.