BOROUGH OF SOUTHAMPTON 



the inhabitants was given to the corporation ; piccage 

 and stallage were ordered to be paid by strangers ; 

 one or more prisons were to be kept in the town ; a 

 corn market was to be held every Thursday. The 

 mayor and corporation were to take tolls, while no 

 person who had been mayor was obliged to bear arms 

 in person. For the benefit of sailors and fishermen 

 and the bettering of navigable streams, the mayor 

 might cleanse all creeks and rivers within the liberties 

 where the tide flows, and take the soil. The most 

 important item on the charter, however, was the 

 clause by which a judgement in the court of the 

 Exchequer which had been given against the town in 

 1635 was reversed.* 05 The liberties, franchises and 

 privileges which had then been taken into the king's 

 hands by reason of their exercise without warrant or 

 royal grant * 6 were now restored to the town, and the 

 mayor, bailiffs, and burgesses were freed from all 

 penal consequences which had been involved in this 

 judgement. 



It appears that soon after the Restoration, in May, 

 1 66 1, the town considered the advisability of renew- 

 ing this last, or procuring a fresh charter, 807 a question 

 periodically mooted. In December the same year the 

 Corporation Act * 08 was passed with a view to captur- 

 ing the boroughs ; and in the following February 

 (1662) commissioners, consisting of the mayor, alder- 

 men, and others were appointed by letters patent to 

 administer the Act. But towards the end of the 

 reign, November, 1683, the town was again com- 

 pelled to deal with the charter. The attempt of the 

 crown to obtain control over all municipal elections 

 involved a correspondence with Sir Leoline Jenkins, 

 Chief Secretary of State, in which the town avowed its 

 willingness to surrender, but pleaded utter poverty 

 * the late rebellion had robbed the chamber of all 

 public money the plague had consumed their inhabi- 

 tants, the Dutchmen had spoiled them of nearly all 

 their ships, their looms were useless owing to the late 

 Act of Prohibition,* 09 their revenues had sunk, their 

 burdens increased, let his sacred majesty be assured 

 that the true cause of their tardiness in delivering up 

 their charter was want of money, not of loyalty.' 

 Meanwhile they determined, should the king desire 

 it, to yield up their charter at once without waiting 

 for a quo tvarranto, and get a new charter on the best 

 terms they could. In December the reply from Sir 

 Leoline came ; the king would require the town to 

 surrender its franchise of being a separate county, and 

 to be united to the body of Hampshire, all other 

 liberties being saved and restored ; on such terms he 

 would consent to their having a new charter for 

 nothing, if they could not afford half fees, the rate at 

 which other poor corporations had renewed. 



The town swallowed this bitter pill, professing to 

 be grateful, and on 6 September, 1684, the instru- 

 ment was sealed surrendering the charter with all that 

 went under it. In November a commission was 

 appointed to negotiate a new one ; bnt owing to the 

 king's death in the following February the matter fell 

 through. James II followed the policy of the preced- 

 ing king in regard to the corporations. A quo 



warranto bearing date 28 November, 1687, but not 

 produced to the mayor till 23 January, was issued 

 against the town requiring the presence of the mayor 

 and bailiffs at Westminster to answer for their 

 franchises. On this a correspondence ensued with the 

 Attorney-general. They would make no defence, but 

 humbly submit their charter to His Majesty's mercy ; 

 nothing but their poverty had prevented their seeking 

 renewal before, and the same was their plea now ; thus 

 they begged that suffering judgement to pass by default 

 might not be interpreted unfavourably, as they had 

 been advised to that course as most submissive to the 

 king, least troublesome to the Attorney-general, and 

 easiest for themselves. Towards the end of the year 

 it was understood that the matter would not be pressed, 

 and on 5 November, 1688, the recorder was desired 

 to employ some one ' to see that a nolle prosequi be 

 entered upon the quo warranto brought against the 

 town,' and for this they were ready to disburse. 



Meanwhile a ' new charter,' destined to be a dead 

 letter, had been prepared, and is said to have been 

 lodged in private hands at Southampton to be pro- 

 duced at the proper time. The preamble states that 

 the ancient franchises of the town had, for various 

 abuses, been seized into the king's hands by a judge- 

 ment on quo tvarranto, and that a new charter was 

 granted on petition of the inhabitants. A common 

 council was provided to consist of the mayor, recorder, 

 thirteen aldermen, and twelve burgesses, one super- 

 visor of the customs, and one common, i.e. town 

 clerk. The mayor, recorder, four senior aldermen, 

 and four burgesses were to be justices. But the 

 significant variations were these : The king was 

 empowered under seal of privy council to remove 

 any officer or burgess, and to appoint others mayor, 

 aldermen and burgesses within twenty days, to elect 

 person or persons named in royal letters mandatory 

 to vacant offices, however small the number of bur- 

 gesses attending, and all officers and burgesses were 

 dispensed from taking the oaths of supremacy and 

 allegiance, and that contained in the Corporation 

 Act, from receiving the Sacrament of the Lord's 

 Supper after the Anglican Rite, and from subscribing 

 the declaration in the Popish Recusants Act (25 

 Chas. II, cap. 2). Moreover, no recorder or town 

 clerk was to be admitted without royal consent under 

 seal. A rectification of the_ governing charter (16 

 Chas. I) in some particulars was occasionally contem- 

 plated ; and on 6 September, 1723 (10 George I) a 

 petition for a new charter received the town seal. 

 But nothing came of this action, and the charter of 

 1640 continued in force till the Municipal Corpora- 

 tions Act of 1835. 



Of the officers of the town the prominent persons 

 in Southampton before and during the thirteenth 

 century were the king's bailiffs, 810 to whom he directed 

 his writs on matters concerning the town and the 

 royal fiscal requirements. The earliest names of 

 bailiffs to be found in this century are : In 1205, 

 William of St. Lawrence and Thomas de Bussuse ; >n 

 in 1 209, Goce ; 81> in 1212, Roger Swein and William 

 the Englishman. These two bailiffs (balliv'i), together 



*> 5 Exch. K..R. Trin. Chas. I, No. 



37- 



908 It seems not unlikely, as Dr. Speed 

 has suggested (MS. fenei Corp. Southt.) 

 that this quo 'warranto may have been 

 incurred by their having neglected to 



certify to the Exchequer the amount of 

 petty customs in that year, no account of 

 which appears. 



*>7 Town Journ. (Corp. MSS.), 8 May, 

 13 Chas. II. 



" Stat. 13 Chas. II, Stat. 2, cap. I. 



51- 



* Probably Stat. 29 & 30 Chas. II, 

 cap. i, 70, &c. 



M0 See above, under fee-farm ; Col, 

 Clost, 1227-31, p. 159. 



811 Cal. Chit, 1226-57, p 61. 

 Hist. MSS. Com Rep. vi, App. i, 

 551-69 ; God's House Comptus R. 



