A CATALOGUE OF THE ARUNDEL BOROUGH ARCHIVES

Arundel Borough/I INCORPORATION

Arundel Borough/A ADMINISTRATION

Arundel Borough/J JUDICIAL

Arundel Borough/L LEGAL

Arundel Borough/M MAYOR AND BURGESSES

Arundel Borough/F FINANCIAL: mayor's accounts

Bridgewarden's accounts

Brookwarden's accounts

Miscellaneous accounts

Arundel Borough/P PROPERTY: leases of borough properties

Lists of leases

Leases of the burgesses' brooks

Maps and plans

Arundel Borough/B BONDS: surety bonds

Apprenticeship bonds

Bastardy bonds

Miscellaneous bonds

Arundel Borough/E ELECTIONS: poll books

Iindentures of members of parliament

Arundel Borough/C ARUNDEL COMMISSIONERS

Edited by Ian Mason, Assistant Archivist

<p>SEE MP 2420 for transcript of talk by Ian Mason on the Arundel Borough Records. Presented at the Annual Day Conference of the West Sussex Archives Society, April 1985</p>

Deposited by The Town Clerk, Arundel Town Council, Maltravers Street, Arundel in 1984.

Arundel Borough Archives M8, B1/11 deposited by Hon. Curator, Arundel Museum, 61 High Street, Arundel in 1985.

INTRODUCTION

Medieval origins of the borough

Little is known about the early history of the borough, or its origins. In the time of Edward the Confessor the town consisted of a castle and mill, yet by the time of Domesday in 1086 the town had grown in importance and was described as a borough and its inhabitants as burgesses. This suggests that the town was made a borough at some time between the Conquest and Domesday. It is likely that the borough's priveleges were granted by William I, at the same time that he settled the earldom of Arundel on Roger Montgomery in 1071 and that this concession was made at the special request of Earl Roger. Arundel was thus a borough by prescription, which meant that it had no original royal charter and that it held its liberties by ancient prescribed custom (1).

Arundel was, in origin, a manorial borough. Roger Montgomery held the town as a feudal appendage of the castle and there was a close relationship between the borough and the lord of the manor, the Earls of Arundel. In 1288 (2) and again in 1302 (3) the inhabitants of the borough specifically claimed no liberties except through their manorial lord. The subordination of the borough to the manor was evident as late as 1570 from a survey taken by Robert Harris at the command of Thomas, Earl of Arundel which listed the dues the mayor and burgesses had to pay to the lord (4).

Elizabethan "charter"

In 1583 a controversy arose concerning the right of the mayor and his officers to execute writs in the borough. A jury of the oldest inhabitants declared this to be immemorial custom and declared in favour of the privilege. The dispute came to the attention of the government. In January 1586 Queen Elizabeth ordered the attorney general to move for a writ of "Quo Warranto" calling on the mayor and burgesses to show by what right they claimed their liberties (5). The result of this action was an exemplification, or legal judgement, which established the liberties of the borough (6).

In the exemplification the mayor and burgesses affirmed that Arundel was an ancient borough and that it had a prescribed right to elect burgesses and a mayor. They asserted the right to two markets each week, and four fairs each year and the liberty to hold a three weekly court. They disclaimed some priveleges: the right to hold a court leet; the regulation of weights and measures, and the assize of bread, wine and ale; the possession of a pillory, ducking stool and gallows and the execution of all writs in the borough.

This judgement was an important stage in the development of the town's priveleges. The borough claimed rights, such as the holding of three of the fairs originally granted to the Earls of Arundel in 1285 and 1288, that clearly belonged to the lord of the manor (7). The corporation was probably able to secure greater independence from their manorial lords because at this time Philip Howard, Earl of Arundel was in the Tower of London under suspicion of complicity of catholic conspiracies against the Queen.

Articles of Gawdy and Clarke

The exemplification of Queen Elizabeth did not settle the question of how the mayor should be selected. In 1587, the year after the judgement, there was a dispute over the method of selecting the mayor in which the two nominees, Francis Garton and William Lusher, challenged some deviation from custom.

The dispute was referred to a tribunal of judges comprising Sir Thomas Gawdy, Justice of the Pleas and Robert Clarke, Baron of the Court of Exchequer (8). The two judges issued an article which set out the method for electing mayors (9).

Mayor's were to be elected at the Court Leet on the law day of the borough which was kept on the Tuesday after the feast of St. Michael Archangel. The mayor returned a jury consisting of the burgesses and as many of the other principal inhabitants to make up the number twenty four. The jury selected two burgesses as nominees for the office of mayor. The commons, who were inhabitants of the town, but not members of the jury, elected one of the nominees as mayor. This method of selecting the mayor did not change until the borough was reformed in 1835.

Disputes over the election of burgesses

By custom burgesses were elected by the majority of the mayor and burgesses. In the Commonwealth period there was clearly some dispute over the method of electing burgesses. It seems that from about 1650 burgesses were nominated by the mayor and burgesses, who recommended names to the jury to be approved and presented to the commons, who elected them. In 1659 disputes over the method of electing burgesses were referred to Henry Howard, the brother of the Earl of Arundel. An arbitration between the mayor and burgesses and about thirteen of the principal commons confirmed the election of burgesses by the commons. The disputes over the method of electing burgesses were closely linked to the political and religious divisions in the town and, in particular, to the existence of a powerful Presbyterian faction which controlled the corporation during the Commonwealth (10).

In 1661, following the restoration of Charles II, a Corporation Act was passed which excluded from municipal corporations all those who refused to take the sacrament according to the rites of the established church. In Arundel, the existing mayor and burgesses, all nonconformists, refused to take the Corporation Act oath and were excluded from office. A new, conformist, corporation was appointed by the commissioners dispatched to administer the oath (11).

At the election for the mayor in 1671 the Presbyterian faction tried to regain control of the corporation. They entered a presentment at the Court Leet that their own supporters should be burgesses and that John Pellett should be mayor. The existing mayor and burgesses withdrew from the court and John Pellett was duly elected mayor. There followed a legal dispute between the new mayor and burgesses and the ex-mayor, Richard Hall, in which the mayor and burgesses brought a bill into Chancery to oblige Richard Hall to deliver the seal, records and brooks belonging to the corporation, to them. The decision was in Richard Hall's favour and he was elected mayor in 1675 (12).

Exemplification of Charles II

The legal case, mayor and burgesses vs. Hall, did not settle the question of how burgesses should be elected, but decided only on the narrow question of the surrender of corporate property. This was decided by a feigned action brought by Richard Hall against John Pellett in which the former affirmed that the mayor should be chosen out of the burgesses and that the burgesses should be chosen out of the inhabitants by the mayor and majority of burgesses. The decision was embodied in the exemplification of 12 February 1677 which re-affirmed the ancient custom of electing burgesses by the mayor and burgesses (13).

Legal Disputes

There were other disputes over the liberties and constitution of the corporation. These arose because the mayor was returning officer for parliamentary elections and various factions sought to influence the election of mayor.

In 1735 the Duke of Norfolk sought to influence the election of burgesses and the mayor. The Duke's nominee for mayor, John Booker, died in office before the corporation could take any legal action against the Duke. Following the death of mayor Booker, Richard Holmes, steward of the Court Leet, refused to summon a jury to elect a new mayor. The town was without a mayor for one year whilst the corporation appealed to the King's Bench. In the case King vs. Holmes, the steward, Richard Holmes, was ordered to proceed with the election of a new mayor (14).

In King vs. Pecknell, 1741, Sir John Shelley applied for a writ of "Quo Warranto" against John Pecknell calling on him to show by what right he claimed to be mayor. John Pecknell was elected mayor after several adjourned meetings of the Court Leet caused by the non-attendance of the Shelley faction who were using these tactics to prevent Pecknell becoming mayor, and hence returning officer, for the forthcoming election (15).

Judicial Functions

The corporation had no criminal jurisdiction. The borough was within the jurisdiction of the magistrates, sheriff and coroner of the County of Sussex.

The corporation held a borough court every three weeks. This court was presided over by the mayor and attended by the burgesses and other officers of the borough. The court could decide pleas of debt under 40s (17). In the second half of the 18th century the court regulated the weights and measure of bread, wine, and ale, issued orders for the removal of vagrants and control of nuisances and orders for Sunday observance (18).

This borough court should not be confused with the Court Leet which was a manorial court presided over by a steward appointed by the lord of the manor. The Court Leet met annually on law day, the first Tuesday after the feast of St. Michael the Archangel, when the mayor was elected.

It appears that the officers of the borough were appointed at both these courts at different times. The 1586 exemplification vests the borough court with the right to elect port-reeves, constables and serjeants at mace, but by the 18th century this was done by the Court Leet.

The Brooks

The principal property of the corporation was valuable brook lands known as the burgesses' brooks. The brooks consisted of about 100a. of meadowland between the castle and the river. It is unclear how the burgesses acquired the exclusive right to these lands and by what right they claimed the freehold of the land. In the 12th century, following the enlargement of the Priory de Calceto by Queen Adeliza, William de Albini (1135-1176), the 4th Earl of Arundel, gave to the Priory a fishery and the right of pasturage in the brooks, in common with the burgesses. At this time the burgesses' privelege was only to pasturage, not to the land itself. When the Priory was dissolved in 1525 the burgesses received the Priory's right of pasturage in the brooks along with responsibility for care of the bridge. It is likely that this acquisition of the brooks was linked with the change in the meaning of the name "burgess" from any inhabitant to an exclusive one applied only to members of the corporation. The land became, by prescription, the property of the corporation (19).

The burgesses were allowed to put into the brooks fixed numbers of cattle and horses. Leases in the brooks were the exclusive privelege of the burgesses and were only extended to the commons at certain times, with the permission of the mayor and burgesses (20). In 1758 the whole of the brooks were leased for 21 years for a total annual rent of £111 (21). In 1780 the brooks were divided into plots and allocated to burgesses for life, provided they remained members of the corporation, at fixed annual rents (22).

The corporation owned other property. This consisted of various shops and storehouses in the town and a butchers shambles (23). They were also responsible for the maintenance of the quay (24).

The Bridge

In the time of Queen Adeliza (d.1151) the responsibility for the repair and upkeep of the bridge was transferred to the monks of the Priory of Calceto. A grant of pasturage in the brooks accompanied this responsibility. When the Priory was dissolved in 1525 the care of the bridge seems to have been transferred to the mayor and burgesses, who also received the Priory's rights of pasturage. From this period the mayor performed the office of bridgewarden (25).

The bridge was maintained by voluntary subscription, rents on shops and storehouses and an annuity from the Crown House in Arundel, bequeathed by Thomas Taylor, c.1592 (26). The corporation were refused permission by Quarter Sessions to raise a rate for maintenance of the bridge (27). The bridge was re-built in 1593 and again in c.1646, following its collapse in 1641, from the above sources of income. At some time, probably in the early 18th century, the repair of the bridge came to be charged on the parish rates (28).

Officers of the corporation

i) mayor The mayor was elected annually on the law day at the Court Leet in accordance with the articles of Gawdy and Clarke issued in 1588 (see above). The actual duties of the mayor were fairly limited: he presided over the three weekly borough court, he acted as treasurer of the corporation, and also held the office of bridgewarden. The mayor also provided dinners for the burgesses at various times in the year and for the lord's steward and jury on the day of his election (29).

ii) burgesses The burgesses were a body of indefinite number, varyingaat different times from 3 or 4 to 12 or 13. The burgesses were appointed by the mayor and burgesses, though these were deviations in this custom during the Commonwealth and Restoration periods (see above). Burgesses had to be residents of the borough of Arundel (30). In the 18th century they paid fines on their admission ranging from £7 in 1701 to 100 guineas in 1821 (31). Until 1831 these fines were distributed amongst the existing body of burgesses (32). The burgesses had no duties beyond that of attending the borough court (33).

iii) brookwardens The brookwardens was appointed annually to administer the brooks. This involved keeping up the fences and ditches, ensuring that the correct number of cattle was in the brooks, and administering the rents of leases in the brooks. The brookwarden could appoint an assistant, called a cow herd, to help him with his duties (34).

iv) bridgewarden This officer was responsible for the administration and repair of the bridge. The mayor held the post of bridgewarden. (35)

v) serjeants at mace Two serjeants at mace were required to attend all meetings and civic functions to wait on the mayor. (36)

vi) other officers Other officers of the corporation consisted of two each of the following: constables, portreeves, ale conners, searchers and sealers of leather, and affeerors (37).

Civic Regalia

The borough had a seal from an early date. The first reference to a seal in the minute books was in 1568 (38), but the origins of the seal were probably much older. The seal has a swallow standing on a spiral branch with the legend "Sigillum Burgenium de Arundel" (39).

The corporation had three maces. The earliest dates from c.1594 (40), the second has the initials of Nethaniel Older and can therefore be dated c.1646 and the third mace was presented by Lord Angier Viscount Longford, one of the members of parliament for Arundel, in 1677 (41).

The first reference to the wearing of gowns was in 1647 when an order was made for burgesses to provide themselves with gowns made of black cloth and lined with black velvet. (42). The provision of a gown became a requirement for all new burgesses. Gowns were worn at all courts, to church on Sunday and at other civic occasions.

Town feasts were common. Feasts for the whole town on mayor choosing day were periodically banned and revived. The mayor provided dinners for the burgesses, steward, jury and officers of the Court Leet and also dinners for the principal inhabitants of the town (43).

The Commissioners

In 1785 a local improvement act was passed for Arundel. This Act established commissioners with powers to collect rates, borrow money, pave and repair streets, make foot pavements, set up lamps, prevent nuisances and regulate building (44). The mayor was an ex officio member of the commissioners. In 1835 the Municipal Corporation Act transferred the powers of the commissioners to the mayor and corporation and in 1876 the Act creating the commissioners was repealed (45).

Municipal Corporations Act

The borough was reformed by the Municipal Corporations Act (46). Records of the post-1835 borough are listed in the catalogue of Urban and Rural District Council records (BO/AR).

1. The Rev. M.A. Tierney, The History and Antiquities of The Castle and Town of Arundel (1834), 689-692.

2. Tierney, 691.

3. J. Dallaway and E. Cartwright, The Parochial Topography of the Rape of Arundel, in the Western Division of the County of Sussex (1832), 206.

4. Dallaway and Cartwright, 206.

5. Tierney, 697.

6. West Sussex Record Office (WSRO), Arundel Borough Archives I1.

7. Tierney, 696.

8. Tierney, 699-700.

9. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives M1.

10. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives L3, depositions of witnesses.

11. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives M11.

12. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives L3, depositions of witnesses.

13. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives I2.

14. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives L4; GW. Eustace, Arundel: Borough and Castle (1922), 205-209.

15. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives L5; Eustace, 211-215.

16. Royal Commission on Municipal Corporations. England and Wales. Appendix to the first report of the Commissioners, Part II: South Eastern and Southern circuits (1835), 671.

17. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives I1.

18. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives J1.

19. Tierney, 706-709; Eustace, 107.

20. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives A1, many entries in the minute book relate to the brooks, but see especially ff.48, 51v, 62.

21. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives A1, ff.194v-195v.

22. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives A1, ff.207v-209v.

23. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives P1/1-46, other references to corporate property can be found in Arundel Borough/A1, Arundel Borough/F2/1.

24. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives A1, ff.56v-57, 109, 120, 132v, 179v.

25. Tierney, 716-720; Eustace, 106.

26. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives F2/1, 4, 5.

27. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives F2/13; Tierney, 717; Eustace, 145; Ed. B.C. Redwood, Quarter Sessions Order Book, 1642-1649, SRS vol. 54 (1954), 4, 83.

28. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives F2/1, ff.24, 25, 41.

29. Royal Commission, 671.

30. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives A1, f.22; other entries in the same volume refer to burgesses being dismissed for not living in the borough.

31. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives A1 ff.123, 170, 174, 182, 196, 200, 204v, 223v.

32. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives A1 f.228; Ed. G.W. Eustace, The Tompkins Diary in SAC 71 (1930) 35, 39, 41-2.

33. Royal Commission, 671.

34... WSRO Arundel Borough Archives A1, various entries refer to the functions of the brookwarden.

35. Tierney, 716.

36. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives A1 f.61v; Royal Commission, 671.

37. Royal Commission, 668.

38.. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives A1 f.19.

39. Eustace, 179, 256.

40. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives F2/1, f.4.

41. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives A1 f.96v; Eustace, 225.

42. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives A1 f.57.

43. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives A1, various entries relate to town feasts but see especially ff.35, 60, 124-124v, 210; SAC 71, 35-37.

44. WSRO Arundel Borough Archives C1.

45. WSRO BO/AR 24/4/5.

46. Eustace, 235.