New Shoreham

In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries New Shoreham, at the mouth of the River Adur and on the narrow coastal plain between the sea and the South Downs, was among the most important Sussex ports, partly because it offered the shortest transit by land from the Channel to London. Like many neighbouring ports, however, it then suffered a devastating decline. William Camden described it as ‘ruined and under water’, and it was reported to have been exceedingly poor. W. Camden, Britannia (1695), 173. Yet although it was by that time engaged more in coastal than in foreign trade, the town remained an important naval arsenal and a centre for shipbuilding, and also had some military significance. VCH Suss. vi, pt. 1, pp. 138-40, 158; B. Green, ‘New Shoreham’, Suss. Arch. Coll. xxvii. 69, 79. The town’s craftsmen provided 12 vessels for Charles I in 1628. Green, ‘New Shoreham’, 87; VCH Suss. vi, pt. 1, pp. 156, 159, 162.

New Shoreham was a borough by prescription, and had sent Members to Parliament since the reign of Edward I. However, the town developed no municipal organization, and the constable, who was elected at the manorial court leet, acted as returning officer. The franchise was granted to those inhabitants paying scot and lot, who in 1681 numbered around 70, out of a population which probably exceeded 500. VCH Suss. vi, pt. 1, p. 167; Compton Census, 149. Fewer than 80 names, however, were recorded on the hearth tax assessments. E179/258/17/7, ff. 1-3; E179/191/410; E179/258/14, ff. 42-43v; E179/158/17. The borough traditionally belonged to the barony of Bramber, and thus fell under the electoral influence of the Howards, dukes of Norfolk. After the 4th duke’s attainder in 1572, however, this visibly declined, although at Shoreham family members like the 1st earl of Nottingham (Charles Howard†), the lord admiral, continued to exert influence in the early seventeenth century. HP Commons 1558-1603; HP Commons 1604-1629.

This interest was doubtless still at work in the parliamentary elections of spring 1640, although both the Members returned had represented the borough previously, had developed some independent standing and (in one case at least) had other patrons. C219/42ii/33. John Alford, a local gentleman, had Catholic links likely to have endeared him to the Howards, but his most significant association was with the Sidneys, earls of Leicester, and Percys, earls of Northumberland. Alford was a friend of Henry Percy* (brother of Algernon Percy†, 4th earl of Northumberland), and in May 1641, with Viscount Lisle (Percy’s nephew Philip Sidney*) and Hugh Potter* (Northumberland’s secretary), he was nominated to receive a pension due to Percy. CSP Dom. 1640-1, p. 570. That Alford was probably returned in opposition to the ‘puritan faction’ in the county is suggested by a complaint made in January 1640 by his parish minister, Dr Edward Burton, about the rival electioneering activities of James Rivers* and Anthony Stapley I*. Add. 5698, f. 186; CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 386-7. The second Member for Shoreham was William Marlott, a merchant, who as a long-standing deputy vice-admiral of Sussex had worked closely with Charles Howard†, 2nd earl of Nottingham, through the 1630s. CSP Dom. 1611-18, p. 206; 1627-8, p. 572; SP16/93, f. 130. However, as a customs farmer and experienced local commissioner, he had apparent wealth and access to extensive local networks. APC 1615-16, p. 377; SP16/59, f. 32; PC2/40, f. 551; C181/3, f. 271v; C181/4, ff. 47, 54; C181/5, f. 70; C192/1.

Both Alford and Marlott were re-elected to the Long Parliament, where, as in the spring of 1640, they made little visible impact. Although initially suspect at Westminster on account of his part in the attempt to secure Chichester for the king in August 1642, Alford apparently avoided involvement in royalist military activity once war actually broke out and (having previously withdrawn) returned to Parliament in late 1643, and to the county bench in 1646, probably as a result of the efforts of men such as Sir Thomas Pelham*. CJ ii. 711a, 740a, 783a, 869b; iii. 256b, 389b, 439a; PJ iii. 478; Add. 33084, f. 65; C231/6, p. 40; PROB11/208/34. Removed from Parliament at Pride’s Purge in December 1648, Alford died shortly afterwards. CJ vi. 34b; OPH xviii. 467-71; C3/221/500. Meanwhile, Marlott remained little in evidence in the Commons, but made a modest contribution to parliamentarian administration in Sussex, perhaps limited by his advanced age. CJ ii. 830a; iii. 367a, 439a; A. and O.; SP19/90, f. 40; ASSI35/85/1.

Following Marlott’s death in February 1646, on 18 August a writ was issued for a new election at Shoreham on 24 July. P.S. Godman, ‘Itchingfield’, Suss. Arch. Coll. xli. 108, 113; CJ iv. 627a; C231/6, p. 55. Harbert Springett, whose mother’s family had hailed from nearby Erringham, was returned for the borough some time before 24 February 1647, when he made his first recorded appearance at Westminster. CJ v. 97a. Springett had been more active than Marlott in the parliamentarian cause locally, but his attendance record was little better than that of his predecessor, and his election seems primarily a product of the efforts of county moderates led by Sir Thomas Pelham and Sir Thomas Parker* to block the pretensions of war party radicals like Harbert Morley*. CJ v. 543b. He too was secluded at Pride’s Purge.

Shoreham was thus effectively without representation during the Rump. Having largely escaped military activity during the 1640s, however, the town achieved a degree of contemporary notoriety as the port from which Charles Stuart departed from England in 1651, following his flight from defeat at Worcester. Green, ‘New Shoreham’, 88. It was disenfranchised under the terms of the Instrument of Government, and was not eligible to send Members to either the 1654 or the 1656 Parliament.

Shoreham was re-enfranchised in the 1659 Parliament, albeit only as a single-Member constituency. The borough initially returned John Whalley*, who was the son of Major-general Edward Whalley*, and probably a court candidate, although he may also have invoked an interest as a new son-in-law of Harbert Springett. CB. Whalley was also returned for Nottingham, in his native county, and chose to sit for that borough, so on 16 February 1659 the Commons ordered a writ for a fresh election at New Shoreham. CJ vi. 604a. The new Member was Edward Blaker, who had risen from the very minor gentry to become sheriff of Sussex in 1657 and who was now resident in the borough. VCH Suss. vi, pt. 1, p. 152. Too young to have seen military service in the 1640s, he was married to a daughter of Henry Goringe*, a covert royalist, and during his shrievalty was alleged to have made some compromising remarks in response to news of royalist plots, but these were insubstantial and he was apparently exonerated. Nonetheless, he may have been one of the many crypto-royalists in a Parliament in the proceedings of which he played no recorded part. It is indicative that it was as a court supporter that he retained the seat from 1660 until his death in 1678.