PORTSDOWN HUNDRED 



PORTSMOUTH 



Justice,*" and from that date until the present day it has 

 sent two burgesses to every Parliament with some few 

 exceptions. These occurred chiefly in the fourteenth 

 century, when the bailiffs failed to return burgesses to 

 six several Parliaments. 174 This failure was probably 

 due to the burden of their expenses, which fell upon 

 all the burgesses, for as late as 1597 one representative 

 was paid ^s. a day during the session of Parliament." 5 

 The lord of Portsea manor was bound to contribute 

 towards these expenses, since divers of his lands lay 

 within the liberty of the town.* 76 It might therefore 

 be concluded that the vote was vested in land- 

 holders within the borough ; but, so far as can be 

 drawn from the existing returns, the bailiff and 

 burgesses alone had a voice in parliamentary elections. 

 This was the case in 1477-8 ; in 1572 the mayor, 

 chamberlains, and commonalty of the town elected 

 two burgesses, and in 1584 the election was by the 

 burgesses and freeholders, but with these exceptions 

 the returns were always made by the bailiff, or mayor, 

 and burgesses, until the charter of incorporation 

 granted by Elizabeth, after which they were made 

 by the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses, except in 

 1688, when the commonalty also voted. In 16956, 

 the election of Colonel Gibson and Admiral Aylmer 

 having been contested on the grounds that non- 

 burgesses had been allowed to vote, decision was given 

 in favour of the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses.* 7 ' 

 At a former election the inhabitants of Portsea who 

 paid scot and lot endeavoured to vote, but the gates 

 of the town were shut upon them.' 78 During the 

 eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries further 

 difficulties arose respecting non-resident burgesses. 

 The question was finally brought before a committee 

 of the Commons in 1820, and a decision given in 

 favour of the non-residents, 179 but the Reform Act 

 of 1832 gave the vote to householders both in 

 the old borough of Portsmouth and in the parish of 

 Portsea, an arrangement which has not since been 

 altered. 880 



The jurisdiction of the town over the harbour 

 has been the subject of much dispute owing to the 

 early relations between Southampton and Portsmouth. 

 Evidently before the foundation of the town by 

 Richard I the customary dues from ships lading and 

 unlading in what is now known as Portsmouth Har- 

 bour were accounted for by the men of Southampton ; 

 then, after Richard's charter to Portsmouth, 7 was 

 deducted from the ferm of the former for the pontage 

 and petty customs of Portsmouth.* 81 The greater 

 customs were still collected by the men of Southamp- 

 ton, and the customer there accounted for them until 

 the end of the eighteenth century.* 8 * The port of 

 Portsmouth was named in King John's charter to 

 Southampton. Perhaps from this grant arose a plea 

 between the men of the two towns as to what right 



the bailiffs of Portsmouth had to take the ferm of 

 their town, which was alleged to belong to Southamp- 

 ton. They asserted that they collected the pontage 

 and other water-dues, of which their ferm consisted, 

 under the sheriffs writ, and denied that the bailiffs of 

 Southampton had any right in their town.' 83 Un- 

 fortunately no account of the termination cf this 

 plea has been found, but in 1239 an agreement was 

 made by which the burgesses of Southampton retained 

 only their rights over the water.* 64 Thenceforward 

 the customer of that town collected the greater cus- 

 toms, while the petty customs were retained by the 

 men of Portsmouth, who also had jurisdiction over 

 the whole of the harbour from the western portion of 

 Southsea Common to Haslar and northwards to Fare- 

 ham Bridge and Paulsgrove.' 85 In 12793 commission 

 was issued to inquire into the alleged exaction of 

 undue customs at Portsmouth, by which the trade of 

 the town had been greatly prejudiced, 286 and again, in 

 1 344, merchants began to abandon the town owing to 

 the double customs exacted, first by the men of South- 

 ampton in the port, and then by the bailiffs of Ports- 

 mouth in the town, in accordance with letters patent 

 granting them the dues on goods bought and sold 

 there towards building the town walls.* 87 In 1432 

 the men of Newport complained that no deputy 

 customers were appointed in the various havens of 

 Hampshire, and the customers at Southampton were 

 commanded to place deputies at Portsmouth and other 

 harbours for one year. 888 In the fifteenth century the 

 water-toll of Portsmouth was farmed out by the 

 steward of Southampton,* 89 and again in 1571 the 

 township petitioned that a deputy-customer might be 

 appointed there 'as in former time," 90 and in 1602 

 Portsmouth was named as a member of South- 

 ampton,*" and was still so in 1696, at which date 

 the customer of Southampton reported that it had 

 formerly paid to the king j8oo yearly in customs, 

 but had so grown in recent years as to produce 

 6,ooo.' 31 Nevertheless Portsmouth remained a 

 member of Southampton port till late in the eigh- 

 teenth or early in the nineteenth century, when it 

 was separated and became itself a port.* 93 Its extent, 

 set out in 1852, includes the whole coast-line from 

 the limits of the port of Arundel at Bosham Creek 

 westwards as far as Hill Head, the limit of Southampton 

 port. 294 



It is as a naval station rather than a trading centre 

 that Portsmouth has gained its importance. Before 

 the building of the town the harbour was used as a 

 starting-point for Normandy ; the royal treasure was 

 sent there from Winchester for transport,* 96 and in 

 1177 almost all the ships of England were gathered 

 at Portsmouth and Southampton.* 96 For two cen- 

 turies after the town had been founded it was used 

 as a rendezvous for expeditions to Normandy and 



V* Ret. ofM.P. (1878), i, 5. Owing to 

 the incompleteness of the records between 

 1265 and 1295 it is impossible at present 

 to state whether the town sent burgesses 

 to Parliament before 1295. 



"^ i.e. to those of 1318, 1319, 1322, 

 1327-8, 1337, 1379-80 and 1384; in 

 some cases also no returns have been 

 found. 



*?* Extract! from the Portsmouth Rec, 149. 



H Ibid. 669. 



*n Commons Journ. xi, 411. 



*' 8 W. Bohun, Coll. of Debates touching 

 the Right of Electing Members to Par!, (ed. 

 1702), 244. 



"7* Comment Journ. Ixxv, 1 1 8, 232, 235, 



*75- 



880 Stat. 2 & 3 Will. IV, cap. 64. 



381 Pipe R. 6 Ric. I. 



583 Custom! Accts. 137/15, 138/1, 

 138/7. 



188 Cur. Reg. R. 36, m. 2 a. 



884 Oak Bk. of Southampton, fol. 28. 



885 Extracts from the Portsmouth Rec. 5. 

 485 Pat. 7 Edw. I, m. 11 a. 



*" Cal. Pat. 1343-5, p. 322. 

 *" R. of Par!. (Rec. Com.), iv, 417. 

 889 Hist. MSS Com. Ref. xi, App. pt. iii, 

 35- 



290 Cal. S.P.Dom. 1566-99, p.35i. The 



I8 5 



customer of Southampton was to be con- 

 tulted ai to such an appointment. 



891 Customs Accts. bdle. 146, No. 26. 



893 Cal. of Treat. Papers, 1556-1696, 



P- 554- 



898 Warrants for Customers' Pat. (P.B.), 

 bdles. 1-6. Under the Municipal Reform 

 Act of 1835 all jurisdiction of Southamp- 

 ton within the port of Portsmouth wai 

 abolished. See Rev. J. S. Davies, Hist. 

 of Southampton, 242. 



891 Land. Gaa. 26 Nov. 1852, p. 3301. 



895 Fife R. ( Pipe R. Soc.), xv, 34 ; xxi, 

 133 ; xxvi, 177. 



" Gesta Henrici II (Rolls Scr.), i, 167. 



24 



