FINCHDEAN HUNDRED 



PETERSFIELD 



and built upon them, ' of purpose to defraud and dis- 

 inherit him of the same,' that they prevented him 

 from keeping his courts in the borough, refused to 

 pay him his rents and services, and lastly, that although 

 the tolls and other profits of the fairs and markets be- 

 longed to him, yet they refused to allow those who 

 came to the fairs and markets to have picage and 

 stallage unless they paid toll, picage, and stallage to 

 them ; ' and that the same fairs and markets by their 

 occasion, were like in time utterly to decay, which 

 tended not only to his disinheritance, but was like 

 also to turn to the prejudice and hurt of the country 

 near adjoining the borough.' M On 3 May following, 

 the defendants answered that Petersfield had time 

 out of mind been an ancient borough, and had sent 

 two burgesses to Parliament, that the mayor and 

 burgesses were seised in fee simple of the borough, and 

 had paid the fee-farm of j is. zd. to Sir Richard 

 Weston and his ancestors for a long time, and that as 

 owners of the borough they had built on the waste 

 grounds within it, and had taken picage, toll, and 

 stallage, at the fairs and markets. They, however, 

 expressed themselves willing to pay him the fee-farm 

 rents with the arrears, ' if he would accept thereof." 9 

 Thomas Hanbury filed his replication in Trinity 

 Term, 1608, alleging, 'That it did not appear in the 

 defendants' answer that the mayor and burgesses of 

 Petersfield were a body corporate, and that he was 

 seised in fee of the borough, the rent of j is. 2d. 

 not being a fee-farm rent.' 40 In their rejoinder the 

 defendants asserted that the mayor and burgesses 

 had for a long time been a body corporate, 'and 

 had used to implead and be impleaded, and to 

 take and purchase lands by the said name." 1 The 

 depositions of various witnesses for both sides were 

 taken at Petersfield on 22 September, 1608." The 

 witnesses nearly all agreed that Petersfield was an 

 ancient borough and mayor-town, but when called 

 upon to adduce any evidence, charter, or grant, 

 whereby privileges or liberties had been granted to 

 the mayor and burgesses, all of them except one 

 declared that they had never seen or heard of any 

 such document. The exception was William Yalden, 

 who said that twenty-five years ago he had seen an 

 ancient charter or parchment in the custody of the 

 mayor and burgesses, wherein ' one Earle Marrett u 

 did grant certain privileges for merchandizing to the 

 inhabitants of the said borough.' The decree of the 

 court was pronounced in Michaelmas Term, 1610," 

 and was completely in Hanbury's favour. It was 

 ordered that he and his heirs should from hencefort.i 

 peaceably and quietly have, hold, and enjoy the waste 

 grounds of the borough whereon no houses were 

 built, as also the rents of assize, the burgage-rents, 

 duties, services, and customs, and all profits and per- 

 quisites of the courts of the borough, and the profits 

 of the fairs and markets, and toll, picage, and stallage, 

 without interruption or disturbance. The court, 

 however, forbore to make any decree touching the 

 houses built upon the waste ground of the borough, 

 although it was of opinion that they belonged to 

 Hanbury, but advised him to take his course for the 



recovery of them at the common law." From the 

 loss of this suit dates the gradual decline of the 

 borough. 



In 1652 cloth was still manufactured in Petersfield, 

 for in that year the clothworkers and the other inhabi- 

 tants of the town presented a petition to the lord of 

 the manor of East Meon, complaining that two fulling- 

 mills in the parish of Steep being copyholds of the 

 manor had been suffered to fall into decay for want 

 of repairs ' and tended to their great charge and 

 hindrance," 46 but the very fact that they had been 

 thus allowed to fall into ruins shows that the industry 

 even then was a waning one. The leather industry 

 also probably declined at the same time, and no 

 manufactures are carried on in Petersfield at the 

 present day. The constitution of the borough for 

 centuries underwent but little change. In the 

 Herald's Visitation of Hampshire and the Isle of 

 Wight in 1686, there is the following account of 

 Petersfield, no doubt furnished by Thomas Hanbury 

 the lord of the borough : ' The burrough of Peters- 

 field is an ancient burrough, the lord whereof is 

 Thomas Hanbury, esq., who by his steward keepeth 

 yearly a court-leet on the Monday after St. Hillary, 

 at which leet the jury elect a mayor and a bailiff to 

 attend him, both out of the freeholders of the said 

 borough, and two other officers called Aldermanni she 

 " testatores panls et cervisiae," which execute the office 

 of tithing-men within the said borrough, and are also 

 chosen (ratione tenurae) out of the freeholders of the 

 said borrough. At the same court is chosen a 

 constable out of the most substantiall inhabitants, 

 which constable is for that year one of the constables 

 for the Hundred of Finchdean. The present mayor 

 is John Heather, mercer, the bailiff, John Warne, the 

 constable, Robert Betsworth. This burrough hath no 

 charter.' The mayor and the other officers continued 

 to be elected at the court-leet of the manor held on 

 the first Monday in Epiphany 47 until 1885. In that 

 year, by the Redistribution of Seats Act, the repre- 

 sentation of the borough was merged in that of the 

 county, and consequently the mayor, who had been 

 the returning officer for the parliamentary borough, 48 

 was deprived of his sole duty. Naturally the court 

 leet was discontinued, the sole function of which had 

 been to elect the mayor and the other officers, whose 

 duties had long been merely nominal. Under the 

 provisions of the Local Government Act, 1894 (56 

 & 57 Vic. ch. 73), the town is now governed by an 

 Urban District Council of nine members, which takes 

 the place of a Local Board, established 1893. 



Petersfield first sent members to Parliament in 

 1306 7, when two burgesses were returned, 49 but from 

 this period it was unrepresented until 15523, when 

 Sir Antony Browne and John Vaughan were returned.* 

 The right of election, as established by a committee 

 of the House of Commons in 1727, was in the free- 

 holders of lands or ancient dwelling-houses, or 

 shambles or dwelling-houses, or shambles built upon 

 ancient foundations in the borough. 41 Until 1831 

 the number of electors was only about 140. By the 

 Reform Act of 2 Will. IV, cap. 45, it was deprived of 



33 Exch. Bills and Answs. Hants, Jas. I, charter to the burgesses of Petersfield has 



No. 220, m. I. been given above. 



Ibid. m. 2. Ibid. m. 3. Exch. Dec. and Ord. (Ser. 2), ix, 



41 Ibid. m. 4. fols. 206-10. 



Exch. Dep. 6 Jas. I, Mich. No. i. Ibid. 



By Earle Marrett ' he probably Eccl. Com. Cu R. bdle. 99, No. 9, 



meant John, count of Mortain, whose p. 30. 



"5 



* Par!. Pafen, 1835, xxiv, 138, and 

 1880, xxxi, 102 and 251. 



Ibid. 



49 Return of Members of Par!, pt. I, 

 26. 



Ibid. 379. 



61 Carew, Rights of Elections, ii, 46. 



