The Castle
The lordship or barony and the
rape of Lewes were both probably
Norman and military in origin, (fn. 1) and
they must have centred from the beginning in the castle,
raised by William de Warenne, first lord of Lewes, (fn. 2)
soon after he received his Sussex lands. The castle is
not mentioned under Lewes in the Domesday survey,
but some of William de Warenne's Norfolk manors
are described in Domesday Book as belonging to the
castellatio or castellum of Lewes. (fn. 3)
Until quite recent times the castle of Lewes followed
the same line of descent as the barony and rape (q.v.).
In the partition of 1439, each co-heir received onethird of the castle; Edmund Lenthall held the 'first
third part', beginning in the exterior eastern part of
the castle and extending towards the west, with free
entrance and exit, the Duke of Norfolk a similar second
part, Elizabeth, Lady Bergavenny, a similar third. (fn. 4)
During the 17th century the site of the castle had been
divided into a number of copyhold tenements. Of
these the Barbican with the Norman Gateway, and
the Keep were granted to Thomas Friend in 1733
and 1750 respectively. They passed under his will in
1762 to his nephew Thomas Friend, and in 1765 to
John Kemp. Thomas Kemp succeeded in 1775 and
Thomas Read Kemp in 1811. Between 1838 and
1851 John Hoper acquired these and other copyhold
portions of the site and, 'with a view to secure the
preservation of the Castle as a public ornament of the
town', offered the property to the lords. Earl de la
Warr and the Earl of Abergavenny accepted the proposal, but the Duke of Norfolk declined it and his
place was taken by Mary, Countess Dowager of Plymouth and later Countess Amherst (sister-in-law of
Earl de la Warr). In 1920 Mr. (afterwards Sir)
Charles Thomas-Stanford bought the copyhold interests of the Marquess of Abergavenny (½), Earl de la
Warr (¼), and Lord Sackville, the successor in title of
Countess Amherst (¼), for £1600 and presented the
property to the Sussex Archaeological Society. The
Society then acquired the freehold interest of the lords,
the Duchess of Norfolk, the Marquess of Abergavenny,
and Earl de la Warr; the copyholds merged in the
freehold, and for the first time since the 15th century
this part of the castle ceased to be the subject of joint
ownership. (fn. 5) The Brack Mount (see below) remained in the hands of the lords until 1937, when,
through the good offices of Mrs. Henry Dudeney, the
Society was able to purchase the freehold. (fn. 6)
When the lordship was in the king's hands, the castle
sometimes emerges fitfully from obscurity. Between
12 June 1240 and 21 September 1241, William de
Munceaus was keeper of the Warenne lands and of
Lewes castle, during the minority of the heir. (fn. 7)
His successor was Peter of Savoy. (fn. 8) The king, under
pressure from the barons, appointed keepers again on
8 June 1264, after the Battle of Lewes. (fn. 9) In September 1398 Richard II made Thomas Attacton porter of
the castle after the Earl of Arundel's forfeiture. (fn. 10) Similarly Henry Rake was appointed porter and bailiff of
the castle and town in 1477 during a minority. (fn. 11) The
names of other officials occasionally survive, for example that of John North, constable on 24 June 1393, (fn. 12)
and of Thomas Lancaster, porter some time before
October 1477. (fn. 13) In 1498 and later the bedell of the
castle received 3s. 4d. yearly; (fn. 14) sometimes the bailiff
of the barony was also porter of the castle, for example
John Young in 1559–60. (fn. 15) It is very possible that the
three offices of bailiff of the barony, bailiff of the town,
and porter of the castle were normally combined. (fn. 16)
The position of the castle in the economy of the
borough is difficult to define. The separation of the
castle precincts was generally recognized by the early
17th century; (fn. 17) later the phrase 'liberty of the castle'
might even be used. (fn. 18) Many tenements around the
castle continued to be held as copyhold from the lords
until the present day; (fn. 19) 'the waste of the manor' or of
the lord, frequently mentioned in court rolls from the
early 17th century on, seems to have lain chiefly, but
not exclusively, (fn. 20) around the castle precincts. (fn. 21) In
1939 only one small piece of wall remains to the lords
of Lewes, and the castle site is largely owned by the
Sussex Archaeological Trust. (fn. 22) The inhabitants of the
castle precincts were exempted from the town-tax, (fn. 23) and
the precincts were extra parochial. (fn. 24) In 1801 there
were 78 inhabitants of the precincts, in 1811, 16, in
1821, 27. (fn. 25)
The castle was used as a prison from the 13th century on, if not before. (fn. 26) John de Warenne, Earl of
Surrey, had by immemorial custom a prison in the
town of Lewes, (fn. 27) and his prison must surely have been
within the castle. In 1278 there is mention of 'Hamelin the Porter of Lewes who holds the prison in fee', (fn. 28)
but there is nothing to show whether he was porter of
the castle or of the town. A case reported in the same
year suggests that there was a town prison: the sheriff's
bailiff had arrested Oliver fitz Ernis, the steward of
Lewes, and John le Sumter, his groom, and handed
them over to the township of Lewes to guard. The
township allowed them to go into the castle, from which
they escaped by a back gate. They were retaken while
trying to cross the river, and 'the earl kept Oliver, but
John was committed to gaol'. (fn. 29) Prisoners could be kept
at Lewes for three days before being sent on to the
county jail at Guildford, (fn. 30) a period that was sometimes exceeded. (fn. 31) The earl certainly used the castle as
a prison in the middle of the 14th century. (fn. 32) The
'king's prison at Lewes', which appears in the mid13th century, might mean the earl's prison temporarily
in the king's hands during a minority; (fn. 33) but in 1298
the king's prison at Lewes is mentioned, (fn. 34) when no
such explanation is possible. Presumably the term
would apply to any prison for offenders against the
king's peace. In June 1381, the Earl of Arundel was
required to retain prisoners in the castles of Arundel
and Lewes, since Guildford jail was full after the
Peasants' Revolt, (fn. 35) and the next year a felons' jail was
formally set up in Lewes castle for two years. (fn. 36)
Throughout the Middle Ages Guildford castle was
the usual county jail for Surrey and Sussex, but in
1487 the inhabitants of Sussex petitioned for a jail to
be erected 'at a place convenient within the town of
Lewes', (fn. 37) and the first commission to deliver the jail
of Lewes seems to have been issued in July, 1489. (fn. 38)
After 1497 such commissions were specifically directed
to the delivery of the jail of Lewes castle. (fn. 39) It was not
apparently until 1610 that the county jail was moved
outside the castle. (fn. 40) The sheriff of Surrey and Sussex
was keeper of the county jail in Lewes castle, (fn. 41) but
must have acted sometimes by deputy. (fn. 42)
The 'twin mounds of loyal Lewes' which 'looked
up to what was one day to be the battleground of
English freedom' (fn. 43) have little known history. The lords
were, on the whole, consistently loyal to the crown; on
the eve of the Battle of Lewes the lord Edward was
the guest of Earl Warenne within the castle; after the
battle the castle still stood firm until the truce, although
its lord had fled. Lewes castle was still thought of as of
military importance in 1336; (fn. 44) but its strength was never
again put to the test. That the earls used Lewes castle
as a residence is shown by the numbers of letters thence
addressed, especially in the 14th century. (fn. 45) On the
ending of the direct line in 1347 the pre-eminent position of the castle was gradually lost, but there is no
proof that immediately 'the antiquated pile was suffered
to moulder piece-meal'. (fn. 46) Letters were issued there by
Richard, Earl of Arundel, then Lord of Lewes, in
1364, (fn. 47) although he doubtless more often lived at
Arundel; and again by Thomas Mowbray Duke of
Norfolk, in 1397, (fn. 48) although the castle had been
seriously damaged in 1381, when buildings, gates,
windows, and records were destroyed. (fn. 49) It was used
by Richard, Earl of Arundel, as a storehouse for wool, (fn. 50)
and had an armament of at any rate four guns, and a
military equipment of 17 basinets. (fn. 51) There is, however, no evidence of the castle being used as a residence
after the beginning of the 15th century. In 1620 some
of the buildings were being pulled down and the flints
were sold. (fn. 52) The castle green was used in later times
for public meetings, as, for example, in 1658 when a
meeting of Quakers was dispersed by the mob. (fn. 53) Defoe
noted about 1725 that 'the castle is lately repaired and
there are now several handsome rooms in it', (fn. 54) and
the Kemps fitted up the keep as a sort of summerhouse. Since 1850 it has been in the occupation of the
Sussex Archaeological Society, at first as tenants and
since 1920 as owners.
Lewes Castle has the usual Early Norman motteand-bailey plan, with the unusual addition of a second
mound. The fortified enclosure lies just north of the
High Street, from which it is approached by Castle
Gate. It forms a rough oval some 450 ft. × 380 ft.,
excluding the mounds, which lie to the south-west and
north-east. On the south it is defended by a bank and
dry moat, now largely filled in, and on the north by the
natural escarpment of the hill on which the town is
built. Some sections of the curtain wall still stand on
the top of the bank overlooking Castle Ditch, chiefly
consisting of the chalk core, with a certain amount of
later flint facing. A section west of Castle Gate overlooking 'the gun garden' retains its original flint facing
laid in courses and in herringbone fashion. No part
of the northern wall remains above ground except
a small portion, part of Castle Precincts House, on
which probably one of the domestic buildings of the
castle abutted, since there is a barrel vault still existing
beneath the house. (fn. 55) A considerable fragment of the
Early Norman Gateway is preserved and includes its
southern wall and archway and most of its eastern wall
projecting northwards from the curtain. The walls of
the Gatehouse are 8 ft. thick, and from a recent excavation its internal dimensions were found to be 32 ft. from
north to south and 22 ft. from east to west. (fn. 56) There
are two arches, each of two orders with semicircular
rings of Caen stone to the outer and inner face, the
latter being higher than the former owing to the slope
of the ground. The southern external angles are
quoined in Caen stone, and part of the internal quoining on both sides of the northern face remains. The
rest of the facing is in large coursed flintwork laid in
the rough herringbone manner of the late 11th century.
There is a small chamber below the roadway on the
site of the Gatehouse, but its walls are modern. There
are signs that an outbuilding with a span roof stood
against the south wall towards the moat, to the east of
the entrance, when the Barbican was built in the 14th
century.
Of the two mounds the eastern, known as Brack
Mount (fn. 57) may have been the earlier, and its position
was no doubt chosen to command the river valley.
It now has no building upon it save a fragment of fallen
masonry faced with flint, but the 1620 plan of Lewes
shows the remains of a shell keep. The ditch between it and the Bailey has been filled in. The western
mound is 65 ft. above the level of the High Street at
Castle Gate, and about 20 ft. higher than Brack Mount.
On its summit is a shell keep, roughly elliptical in
shape, the internal diameters measuring about 85 and
75 ft. The wall, of which the south-western part is
tolerably complete, has a marked batter at the foot on
the outside, being about 7 ft. thick above the batter and
10 ft. at floor level. The parapet platform is 22 ft.
above the ground level, and above this the walls of the
battlements are irregular, having been robbed of their
ashlar coping, and give an uncertain indication of
where the merlons stood. The external flint facing of
the Keep is of the same herringbone courses of large
flints noticed in the Gateway, and can scarcely be later
than the very beginning of the 12th century. It is
probable that at Lewes it was intended from the first
to defend both mounds with masonry, since, where
they have been excavated, the core of the mounds
themselves appears to have been built up of large
squared blocks of chalk.
LEWES CASTLE.
Attached to the south and west sides of the Keep are
semi-octangular towers, of 13th-century date. Externally they are flint-faced with stone quoins to the angles
and three stone set-offs, one below present groundlevel, one midway between this and the parapet, and
the third midway between the other two; beneath the
lowest set-off the tower walls are widely battered as
they descend the slope of the mound. These towers
have suffered a good deal of alteration, and the entrances to both are modern. Originally the centre of
each face near the internal ground level was pierced
by an arrow loop. The splays from these loops met at
the internal angles of the towers and the openings had
two-centred inner arches, which for the most part remain. The splays, however, have been cut back to
allow for modern windows, and although the stones of
the loops are preserved in part on the outside, below
the windows, only one is to be seen from within (the
south loop in the west tower) and this is partly restored.
Above the springing of the internal arches in the west
tower are stone corbels, which probably carried the
ribs of a vault occupying the central portion of each
tower and supporting the floor, which afforded access
to the upper line of loops high up in the walls. These
loops are pierced in the external angles of each octagon,
the halves of the rear-arch of each embrasure being thus
in adjacent walls and not in the same plane. The floors
that served these defences were very little above the
fighting platform of the main parapet, with which they
communicated by doorways. The south tower had a
vice in its eastern wall which led up to the roof, but
only traces of this are visible. The present newel stair
and the porch are modern. The original parapets to
the towers have also been altered.
The wall of the Keep has a row of corbels on its
inner face which no doubt supported the plate carrying
a pent roof. There are also indications of two large
fire-places, one (opened up) west of the south tower,
and the other to the east. There is no sure indication
of the entrance to the Keep, but an L-shaped block of
masonry within its eastern limit may be part of the
foundations of an entrance tower. The short arm of
the L is in line with the foundations of a wall built on
a chord to the NE. segment of the Keep, discovered
and recorded in 1884. A large fragment of the Keep
wall at the NE. point retains the western reveal of a
postern door, whence steps descended on to the top of the
wall, which was no doubt built on the Keep mound to
connect the Keep with the northern curtain of the Bailey.
The present ascent to the Keep has no ancient features, but there must have been a stone stair, protected
by a wall to the southern curtain, and at the point
where it would have joined the parapet are the remains
of a square stone tower, about midway between the
Keep and the main Gatehouse. Parts of the northern
and western walls remain and the inner quoins of the
eastern angle. The southern wall has disappeared, but
from the marks of re-building in the curtain wall at
this point it seems clear that the towers projected south
of the curtain, being possibly carried on a strong corbel
table overhanging the moat.
The Barbican (fn. 58) or Outer Gatehouse was built in the
first part of the 14th century by John seventh Earl
Warenne, who died in 1347. The lower part is
roughly rectangular in plan with two square projecting
towers flanking the south entrance and a circular stair
or vice at its north-west angle. The turret in which the
stair is placed continues down to the Moat, but the
steps begin at the level of the parapet to the curtain
wall. The passage through the Barbican enters under
a two-centred arch of two moulded orders, the same
mouldings being carried down the jambs. The arches
are struck from centres below the springing, so that the
arch and jamb mouldings have to mitre. The passage
emerges on the north under a similar arch of more
elaborately moulded orders, at a rather higher level to
allow of the rise in the roadway. The mouldings die
into the west side of this opening, but apparently continued down the east jamb. Immediately to the south
of this arch are the vertical grooves for the portcullis,
and 4 ft. south of this are grooves for another portcullis
that descended between twin arches, moulded on the
outer sides. The space between the south entrance and
the portcullis arches was originally vaulted with wall
and diagonal ribs, the two south springers being still
in position. On the first floor the square towers on
either side of the entrance are overhung by circular
bartizans which are carried on a bold series of circular
corbel-tables. The west wall is carried obliquely by a
pointed arch from the centre of the south-west turret
to corbels adjoining the stair. The east turret, of which
only a fragment remains some 14 ft. above the corbelling, is separated by a wall from the room over the
gateway and at the angle of junction between the turret and main building an arch is thrown across to form
a garde-robe partly recessed in the wall. Half the
entrance door to this chamber remains, and the space
for discharge is visible. Part of the east wall north of
the garde-robe is carried on corbels, and the remainder
shows where it was built against the outwork of the
Norman gateway.
The room on the first floor is modernized; it retains
an original single-light window on the north with trefoil head, and has a modern light to the west. In the
east wall is a recess for a window, since blocked. There
are two cruciform loops, with moulded external openings to the south wall and three in each turret, those
looking north being unmoulded. The room on the
second floor has a similar window to that below on the
north and also on the south front, and a modern light
to the west. There are no loops at this level, but a
recess inside the west turret suggests that there was an
opening at one time.
The facing of the south front between the turrets
and above the archway is of squared and knapped
flint work. The parapet is brought forward on bold
machicolations carried on arched stones over seven
triple corbels, and side corbels on the turrets. The
parapet is embattled, but is largely restored. The west
turret was rebuilt in 1894.
The bowling green within the castle precincts is said
to have been in continuous use for some three centuries.
The Borough
Information as to the constitutional history of the mesne borough
of Lewes is scanty; though the burgesses possibly exercised some governmental power in
early times, their status and functions are not known.
At the Conquest they almost
certainly held a court. (fn. 60) A solitary
authentic reference to a merchant
gild is tantalizingly uninformative. Rainald de Warenne,
acting on behalf of his brother,
the third William de Warenne,
absent on Crusade, addressed a
letter to the Sheriff of Lewes
(that is, the lord's sheriff of the
rape), and the barons and other
men of the earldom. This announced the restoration of a
merchant gild to the burgesses
'with all the customs and privileges (dignitatibus) which belong to it, as quit and free
as they had it in the time of my grandfather and father,
for 20s. payable yearly, to the provostry (prefectur') of
Lewes'. (fn. 61) There are no other references to this merchant gild, and any connexion traced between it and
the organization of the borough in Elizabethan times
must be conjectural; nor does the provostry, or prefecture, which has been unwarrantably identified with the
constableship, (fn. 62) appear in any other reference.
The Borough of Lewes. Checky . . . a sinister quarter . . . with a lion . . . between eight crosslets . . . thereon. (fn. 59)
The reeve is the earliest known official of Lewes.
He appears in Domesday Book as the recipient of the
customary fines; (fn. 63) a reeve owed 2 marks to the Exchequer for a default in 1177, (fn. 64) and reeves of Lewes
appear as witnesses to 13th-century deeds. (fn. 65) The title
reappears occasionally in the 18th century. (fn. 66) The serjeant of Lewes was possibly attached to the priory; (fn. 67)
and finally, there are the bailiffs and constables.
Royal mandates to Lewes were normally addressed
to the bailiffs and good men,—a formula first found in
use in 1266; (fn. 68) sometimes to the bailiffs and burgesses. (fn. 69)
In 1247 the bailiff is clearly an official of the overlord. (fn. 70)
It is probably significant that a Richard le Clerk is
called reeve in a deed of about 1250, (fn. 71) and a Richard
le Clerk is described as bailiff of the borough in an
undated deed, which has been assigned to the reign
of Edward I. (fn. 72) It is possible that the lord's bailiffs in
Lewes were often his bailiffs also within the rape;
too few names survive for either office to justify
generalization, but the offices were certainly sometimes combined, (fn. 73) and one bailiff of the rape certainly
was also given the office of 'clerk of the town'. (fn. 74) The
appointment of a town clerk was not repeated until
the 18th century. (fn. 75) The association of the borough
and the lordship is likewise shown in an appointment
made by the king on 16 October 1477, during the
minority of Anne Mowbray, when Henry Rake was
made porter of the castle and bailiff of both castle and
town, with the accustomed fees of his predecessor,
which suggests continuity of practice rather than innovation. (fn. 76) The evidence on the whole suggests that the
bailiffs represented the interests of the lord and that
there was therefore no need to limit their activities to
the borough.
By the mid-16th-century the government of Lewes
was exercised by a close aristocratic body, the Society
or Fellowship of the Twelve, assisted by a Council
of Twenty-Four, while the chief officials were the
constables and headboroughs. Any connexion between
these bodies and officials and the merchant gild of
Stephen's day lacks concrete proof. Though it is also
unsound to identify constables and bailiffs, (fn. 77) and the
two types of official existed concurrently, yet the constables very possibly originated early. (fn. 78) In 1372 the
removal of two constables and appointment of their
successors was recorded on the rolls of the borough
court, (fn. 79) which may be suggestive, since in Elizabethan
times and later, and in 'time beyond all memory', the
constables were chosen at the annual lawday held on
the first Monday after Michaelmas. (fn. 80)
Thus, although the burghal status of Lewes before
and after the Conquest is unmistakable, (fn. 81) yet the
later Middle Ages provide no further evidence as to
its constitutional development and the town then appears to possess little more than the normal attributes
of a manorial borough. Yet it is probable that during
the 15th century its constitution as we later know it was
being developed.
It is to this period that the earliest town SEAL,
inscribed sigillum comune burgi de lewys and
bearing the arms of the borough, probably belongs. (fn. 82)
The smaller seal of similar design, inscribed sigillum
burgi de lewys (fn. 83) is probably a later copy. (fn. 84) The
brass matrices are still in the possession of the Corporation of Lewes, and the larger is still in use.
The MANOR of Lewes is a phrase which rarely
occurs in the early Middle Ages, (fn. 85) but became usual
about 1476, when it was used in inquisitions post
mortem; (fn. 86) it appears occasionally under Henry VIII
and frequently, in various connexions, under Elizabeth, and continued to be used in the court-books of
the borough till they end in 1925. (fn. 87) It often occurs in
general phrases used to describe the various possessions
of the lords of Lewes, (fn. 88) and occasionally as equivalent
to lordship; (fn. 89) it frequently appears in the form the
'manor of Lewes borough'. (fn. 90) In the earliest surviving
court-books of Lewes borough, of the 17th century,
the 'custom of the manor' is continually mentioned.
It is hardly possible to assign any very definite meaning
to the phrase, but it is certain that from the late 16th
century on 'the manor of Lewes borough' meant in
law the entity over which the lords exercised manorial
rights in relation to land, quite apart and distinct from
the burghal entity of the borough of Lewes. The
customs and procedure of the court followed normal
manorial lines, and Lewes must now be regarded, in
some aspects, though not in all, as akin to a manorial
borough. (fn. 91)
In the later Tudor period the town was governed
by 'a society of the wealthier and discreter sort of
townsmen, commonly called the Twelve' which had
existed 'time out of mind'. (fn. 92) This society, often known
as the fellowship, (fn. 93) was never supposed to be as small
as twelve or larger than twenty-four; (fn. 94) in 1587 it
numbered twenty, including the constables, (fn. 95) in 1592
and 1593, eighteen. (fn. 96) Vacancies caused by death or
removal were filled up by election by the remaining
members on Whitsunday afternoon. (fn. 97) The earliest
reference to the Twelve dates from 1542. (fn. 98) In theory
the constables were chosen from this body, (fn. 99) though
there was no rigid adherence to this rule. (fn. 100) The Twelve
authorized the town-tax and fixed its rate; (fn. 101) moreover
they issued by-laws, which covered a variety of topics, (fn. 102)
and punished their infringement. (fn. 103) Associated with
the Twelve were a body of Twenty-four, appointed
under fixed conditions, from whom the Twelve were
chosen. (fn. 104)
By-laws of 1550 laid down that the constables were
to read the by-laws aloud annually, that members of
the fellowship must attend meetings, that the constables must make collections for their charges while
in office or lose the proceeds, that the old constables
should hand over the town's possessions to their successors, and so on. (fn. 105) In 1595 a town's meeting of the
inhabitants, a 'general assembly', appears to have been
held to authorize other regulations; (fn. 106) these included
provisions as to elections to the Twelve, (fn. 107) as to their
dress—'decent and comely apparel fit for ancient townsmen'—as to their duty to attend meetings for the
service of the queen or the business of the town, and
as to the penalties for non-attendance; all townsmen
were to bring out their armour and weapons for inspection on the Monday in Whitsun week. Members
of the Twenty-four were required to walk with their
company on Whit-Monday afternoon, to sup with
them 'according to the ancient order' and to show
their armour; defaulters were to be punished by three
hours' imprisonment or a fine of 2s. 6d. (fn. 108) There is
doubtless some echo of seignorial control in the stipulation that the Twenty-four were to be chosen in the
Town-house on Whitsunday after evening prayer, and
are not any more to be chosen in the Castle 'for the
avoiding of further disorder'. Headboroughs were to
attend with staves upon the constables when required;
they were to levy the town-rate, and account for it to
the constables; they were to make imprisonments, put
culprits in the stocks, and to obey the constables and
fellowship on pain of fine or imprisonment. Stipulations were made as to the regular visiting of inns and
ale-houses during the winter months for the maintenance of the peace; finally, ambiguities in the regulations were to be settled by a majority of the constables
and fellowship. (fn. 109)
The evolution of these two town councils is obscure,
and the relations of the Twelve and Twenty-four to
the Jury of the court leet are also not at all clear, nor
is it certain how far the Twelve and the Jury were
distinct from each other. (fn. 110) The Jury is seldom mentioned in the 16th century, though Rowe showed that
the junior constable was to be chosen by the elder
constable, with the consent of the greater number of
the Jury. (fn. 111) The importance of the court leet and view
of frankpledge, held on the first Monday after Michaelmas, is beyond question, for it was there that all the
town-officers were chosen—constables, headboroughs,
scavenger, pounder, one searcher and one sealer of
leather, one clerk of the corn-market, one clerk of the
fish-market, one clerk of the butchery, one 'clerk of
sparres and withes', together with ale-conners for the
four parishes. (fn. 112) The evidence suggests that the authority of the lords in the leet was normally scanty. There
is a certain truculence of tone in Rowe's reference to
the annual election of officers 'without any contradiction or alteration by the stewards'. (fn. 113)
The subsequent history of the Fellowship of the
Twelve by no means clears up the early obscurities.
The encroaching influence of the Jury may be detected
in 1651, when an order was made at a court leet, with
'the consent of the jurors duly sworn and impanelled'
that any member of the Twelve who defaulted at the
leet without good cause should pay 2s. 6d. for every
such default. (fn. 114) Yet the Twelve were apparently still
vigorous in 1652, when they bound themselves to
be responsible for various borough charges. (fn. 115) Subsequently, however, the Twelve are rarely mentioned in
the town-books, and in 1667 the annual constable's
accounts were for the first time submitted to the new
constables and the rest of the Jury, (fn. 116) instead of, as
before, to the rest of the Fellowship. (fn. 117) Yet it does not
appear that the change had any great significance,
though much has been made of it. (fn. 118) The change in
formula was, however, permanent; the activities of the
Twelve gradually disappear from the town-books, and
the appointments of new members cease to be regularly recorded, while their place was taken by the Jury
appointed at the leet in October. (fn. 119) In 1696 new
members of the fellowship were elected in the normal
way, (fn. 120) and in 1709 a meeting was summoned for the
same purpose, in an attempt to 'revive the ancient
customs', (fn. 121) but no names of new members are recorded.
The Fellowship then disappears from the town-books,
and perhaps actually ended in 1720 with the death of
its last member. (fn. 122) The substitution of the Jury for
the Twelve was hardly revolutionary; yet the laments
of the Lewes antiquarians, though doubtless exaggerated, (fn. 123) bear testimony to a real change, for with the
disappearance of both councils Lewes became simply
and entirely a manorial borough.
The Jury of the leet remained in authority throughout the whole year; this is shown especially in the year
1799–1800, when in a series of adjourned law-days the
whole administration of the borough was overhauled; (fn. 124)
the court leet on that occasion was specifically declared
as dissolved in July 1800, but it was noted that the Jury
retained their power until a new one was appointed. (fn. 125)
The Jury in this year consisted of 17 persons, including
the constables but excluding the headboroughs; they
were chiefly shop-keepers and tradesmen. (fn. 126) The
succeeding Jury, which was described also as 'the
representatives of the ancient body called the Twelve',
consisted of 22 persons. (fn. 127) In 1833 the Jury set itself
up as a committee, subsequently strengthened by
many co-options, to consider the government of the
town. (fn. 128)
The financial arrangements of the borough of Lewes
remained somewhat primitive and the sums involved
were never very considerable. The main resources
from the town, the rents, the farms of tolls and customs,
the farm of the fishery, the perquisites of courts, and
so on, were divided between the lords, (fn. 129) and produced
only a few pounds yearly. (fn. 130) The resources remaining
to the borough officials were still more exiguous, but
their outgoings were likewise small; even in 1873, on
the eve of incorporation, the total income of the borough
was only £126 15s. 3d. (fn. 131)
By the mid-16th century, if not earlier, (fn. 132) the borough
of Lewes, although not strictly a corporation, would
appear to have owned some lands. In 1571 the constables and fellowship let out on lease for 21 years 'that
waste plott of ground within the walls of the broken
church under the bell lofte there', (fn. 133) that is to say the
site of the church of St. Nicholas, for 3s. 4d. yearly,
towards the town charges. Similarly in 1573 they
leased 'their common brook called the Constable's
brooke' for ten years at a rent of 13s. 4d. (fn. 134) This
Constable's brook is not to be confused with the Townbrooks, which John Rowe conveyed to feoffees in 1603,
in trust for the use of the constables and the Twelve
for ever. (fn. 135)
An approximate acre of land called the town moot
or moat—the word is not legible—lying under St.
John's Churchyard on the north side near the common
spring, was let in 1586. (fn. 136) Its approximate location
agrees with that of the Hangman's Acre which had
belonged to the cryer of Lewes and came into the hands
of the borough some time after 1690. (fn. 137) Some tenements known as Rotten Row were left to the constables
by will 'for the harbouring of three poor people' in
1586. (fn. 138) The lands called the Godfreys came into the
possession of the borough in 1703. (fn. 139) Hangman's Acre,
the Town Brook, and the Godfreys produced £28 16s.
between them, as reported in 1880, (fn. 140) and are still the
property of the borough. (fn. 141)
By the 17th century, as the result of various borough
negotiations and of various gifts, (fn. 142) the town also owned
a certain number of bonds (fn. 143) in addition to its lands.
For all ordinary purposes of government however, it
appears to have relied upon the levy of a town rate,
which was assessed just to cover the necessary expenses. A constable's rate was rare in the southern
counties, and it is curious that Lewes and Manchester—those two seignorial boroughs of such different history and fortunes—alone developed this rate into a
substantial contribution towards the expenses of local
government. (fn. 144)
The earliest actual reference to the tax is in 1550; (fn. 145)
in 1552 it produced £5 16s. 7d. (fn. 146) The rate of poundage, a question of a few pence, is seldom stated in the
16th century, when the total receipts of the constables
at their highest were some £32. (fn. 147) The lowest sum
received in this period was £2 18s. (fn. 148) Usually only a
few shillings remained to be paid into the town-box
at the annual audit in October; sometimes a small
deficit remained owing to the constables. (fn. 149) After about
1709, however, the expenditure exceeded the receipts
with some regularity, another indication of the slackness of the town-government of the period. The amount
of the annual charge is now occasionally recorded, and
6d. in the pound is a frequent but maximum charge.
Despite stipulations in 1772 that 6d. should never be
exceeded, (fn. 150) in 1822 the charge was 1s., an amount
demanded again in 1823, but subsequently lowered
to 6d. as the result of a public meeting; (fn. 151) from 1877 to
1880 the total receipts were £70 (fn. 152) and the rate was
only 2d. in the pound. (fn. 153)
The legality of these town charges was open to
question, (fn. 154) and recalcitrant townsmen intermittently
refused to pay. An early instance of distraint for nonpayment is in 1569. (fn. 155) Rowe records legal opinions
that such distraints were justifiable, provided that the
charges were levied for the public good and the common use of the borough. (fn. 156) The lords of the borough
seem always to have been acquiescent, though the
privilege would never appear to have been enjoyed as
a prescriptive right. (fn. 157) The amount was originally fixed
by the Twelve at a lawday in August or September, and
the headboroughs were responsible for the actual collection. (fn. 158) But from 1772 (fn. 159) onwards the amount of the
tax appears to have been fixed by special meetings of
the inhabitants. (fn. 160)
The constable's rate was levied on all inhabitants or
housekeepers, but poor persons might be excused upon
occasion. (fn. 161) Old assessments of value appear to have
been taken as the basis of the tax, (fn. 162) and the 'scot and
lot' which appears in the 18th century (fn. 163) and later, presumably is the town-tax. The purposes for which the
tax was used varied. (fn. 164) It was certainly used as a poorrate in Elizabethan times, (fn. 165) a practice subsequently
disallowed. (fn. 166) In that period the wages of the 'burgesses
of the parliament' were also for a time allowed. (fn. 167) In
1776 the rate was specifically directed towards the
rebuilding of the wall at the West Gate. (fn. 168)
During the 18th century the town's meeting, an
extra-legal body, (fn. 169) also met to discuss a variety of other
topics. It discussed, for example, whether a watch
must be kept at the pest-house while it was inhabited
by smallpox victims, and decided, if a town tax to
meet the cost was 'found impracticable', to raise the
money by subscription from sixteen guarantors. (fn. 170) A
meeting called to authorize a town tax also forbade
wheeled vehicles to be driven on the pavements of the
town. (fn. 171) Another meeting discussed the problems of
Sussex defence, and made stipulations as to the terms
of service; (fn. 172) others considered arrangements for a
nightly watch, (fn. 173) for disposing of the old bell, or building a new market, (fn. 174) how to raise a volunteer corps, (fn. 175)
or to expedite the Act for paving and lighting. (fn. 176) Town's
meetings were not unknown in the 16th century, (fn. 177)
but remained infrequent till the reign of George III,
and the habit of appointing ad hoc committees grew
up during the same period; committees were appointed,
for example, to make arrangements for building the
clock-tower, (fn. 178) or establishing the nightly watch. (fn. 179)
Considerable detailed material survives for a closer
study of Lewes in the 18th and 19th centuries, more
especially on the financial side, for a series of constables' accounts, (fn. 180) hitherto unused, exists and, later,
the minute-books of Improvements Commissioners. (fn. 181)
Despite the slackness of administration early in the
18th century the records were on the whole methodically kept. (fn. 182) From 1746, if not earlier, a clerk of the
town, (fn. 183) sometimes called the constables' clerk (fn. 184) was
employed, but his duties were not yet a whole-time
occupation; he is definitely called 'town clerk' in 1830. (fn. 185)
Considerable activity in overhauling the machinery
of government was shown in 1799–1800, probably
through the influence of William Lee, junior. (fn. 186) A
thorough examination of 'the few remains of the town's
property, which have escaped the hands of fraud and
official negligence', was instituted; and a careful inventory was made both of the town's possessions and
of its losses in the preceding seventy years; this year the
subordinate officials were duly sworn in by the steward
at the affairing day; (fn. 187) an 'occasional borough prison
and place of shelter for poor travellers for a night'
was fitted up, the constables' right to grant leases was
questioned; the billeting of 7,000 soldiers was arranged;
a public windmill on the Brack mount was suggested,
but quashed by the Duke of Norfolk, and another site
found for it; weights and measures were rigorously
inspected, and poor relief was limited, as it was considered outside the scope of the town-rate, a change
from earlier practice. The boundaries were perambulated 'both by land and water' and a survey made; a
town well was rediscovered, cesspools were inspected,
and a borough pound was established.
As in so many boroughs, the powers and capacity of
the governing body of Lewes could hardly be stretched
to cover all the varying needs of a modern community.
The attempts of the borough to keep the streets clean, (fn. 188)
to provide watchmen at night, (fn. 189) and so on, do not
appear to have been very effective, (fn. 190) and in 1806 an
Act of Parliament, known to Lewes historians as the
Town Act, set up improvement commissioners to pave,
light, cleanse, watch, and repair the roads and other
public places in Lewes. (fn. 191) The last clause protected the
rights of the lords of the borough. (fn. 192) The commissioners
were presided over at their first meeting by the senior
constable, and it is not clear how much new blood was
brought into the government of the borough, (fn. 193) but the
technical change, the legal freedom to levy a higher
rate and to borrow money, certainly gave more scope
for enterprise. (fn. 194) In December 1881, six months after
the formal incorporation of the borough, the undertakings were transferred to the new borough council. (fn. 195)
The Cliffe, under authority of an Act of 1828, (fn. 196) set
up improvement commissioners in the same year, (fn. 197)
while Southover set up inspectors of lighting in 1847. (fn. 198)
Despite its pretensions and antiquity, Lewes was
not, in the long run, reported upon by the Municipal
Corporations Commission of 1834, (fn. 199) though the jury
at the court leet had in 1833 resolved themselves into
a committee to collect evidence, and sent in a cautious
report upon the existing system of government; they
were 'not aware of any charter of incorporation' but
detailed their existing practice. The constables and
headboroughs were described as 'persons whose station
in life and engagements are incompatible with duties
of police', and the occasion was seized to suggest the
expediency of establishing an organized police force.
The Commissioners apparently decided that they had
no jurisdiction in this case. (fn. 200)
The Commissioners who reported in 1880 had less
zealous officials to deal with, and there was very considerable delay in receiving information from Lewes. (fn. 201)
In the report it was not included in the list of those
boroughs where it was considered that municipal institutions might usefully be retained, (fn. 202) and thus it should
in due course have fallen into the body of the county. (fn. 203)
Strangely enough, despite these opinions, Lewes received its charter the very next year.
In the report of the Commissioners, the right of the
lords of the borough to appoint two high constables
upon the presentation of the leet jury was the only
power recorded as remaining to them. The duties of
the constables were then summarized as being to call
and attend public meetings, to keep up the public
walks and pleasure-gardens, to repair borough property,
and to pave the town. (fn. 204) They held the title-deeds of
borough property, paid the town clerk, and met other
borough expenses, besides being the returning officers. (fn. 205)
Local agitation in favour of incorporation had apparently been growing for about ten years and resulted
in November 1880 in the presentation of a petition
to the Privy Council. There was later considerable
publicity in the local press, and inquiries were made
from such boroughs as Chichester, Guildford, and
Hertford as to their rates. The town records and the
history of the borough from the 6th century [sic] were
investigated; a movement in the Cliffe against inclusion
in the projected borough also developed. In May 1881
the draft charter was approved and the charter of
incorporation was finally sealed on 17 June. (fn. 206) By the
charter a constitution of a mayor, six aldermen, and
eighteen councillors was set up; the last senior constable,
E. Wynne Baxter, who had been active in working
for incorporation, became the first mayor of Lewes.
The town was divided into the three wards in 1894,
and the powers and extent of the borough were increased and the wards reallocated into their present
divisions of Bridge Ward, Castle Ward, and Priory
Ward, in 1934, under the East Sussex Review Order.
The borough now returns two County Councillors
to the East Sussex County Council from the electoral
divisions of Lewes Bridge and Castle, and Lewes
Priory.
Courts
Our ignorance of the actual constitutional powers of the independent Norman
borough obscures also the origins of the
courts. The lord's court at Lewes, held every three
weeks (fn. 207) to which the free tenants of Lewes barony
or lordship owed suit, (fn. 208) was a court for the rape as a
whole. Two rolls of this court, described as 'curia
castri de Lewes' have survived. (fn. 209) A plea of trespass
was removed from it in 1266, because the burgesses
of the town came and successfully requested that the
plea should be heard before them 'in porchiam eorum'. (fn. 210)
This court of the castle is presumably comparable to
the barony court of the gate of the castle of Pevensey. (fn. 211)
John Rowe gives a list of 32 suitors to the barony court
in early Stuart times. (fn. 212) It is not known how long this
court continued to function; it is only important in the
history of the borough as bringing trade and visitors
to Lewes when it met.
At the time of the partition of the lordship, in 1439,
the courts were 'a view of frankpledge at Michaelmas,
a court called the Court of the Town, and a court
called the Court of Barony held there every three
weeks'. (fn. 213) The court held for 'Lewes Burgus' was
sometimes called that of 'the manor of Lewes Burgus', (fn. 214)
and is presumably the 'halimote' referred to in 1498. (fn. 215)
Customary tenants held by copy of its rolls from at
least 1406, (fn. 216) but the earliest surviving roll dates from
1512. (fn. 217)
The records of this court of Lewes borough show
that the proceedings were those of a normal manorial
court baron. (fn. 218) Here the 'custom of the manor', less
often called 'the custom of the borough', (fn. 219) was
administered; (fn. 220) this is chiefly notable in that no
heriots were paid by either freeholders or copyholders quia infra burgum. (fn. 221) The custom of borough
English was in force for copyholders, as in other
manors of the lordship. (fn. 222) As an 'ancient borough' its
burgesses had the typical borough prerogative of free
devise. (fn. 223)
The stewards of the lords presided in the court
baron, and their bailiffs were also present; (fn. 224) sometimes
three stewards were present, sometimes only one. (fn. 225)
The court theoretically met every three weeks, (fn. 226) but
only two courts a year are normally recorded upon the
rolls, though the number fluctuated; (fn. 227) these were
perhaps the semi-annual courts at which alone the
freeholders were bound to appear; (fn. 228) other courts, however, might be held by adjournment. (fn. 229) A distinction
gradually grew up between the special courts summoned
at the request of some individual, (fn. 230) and the general
courts. (fn. 231) At the end of the 18th century, one general
court appears to have been normally held each year
about 1 October, and another often early in January. (fn. 232)
A list of some 90 free tenants and some 40 customary
tenants, of whom some 15 tenants held both free and
customary tenements, survives for 1624; (fn. 233) in September 1600 over 80 free tenants, and some 11 customary
tenants, defaulted. (fn. 234) The perquisites of the courts
were divided between the lords. (fn. 235) This court was still
functioning in 1824, (fn. 236) and probably much later.
By deed dated 1 January 1927 Reginald William,
Marquess of Abergavenny, Herbrand Edward Dundonald Brassey, Earl de la Warr, and Gwendolen
Mary, Duchess of Norfolk, as lords of the borough
appointed the Hon. Richard Plantagenet Nevill,
William Edward Nicholson, and the Duchess of Norfolk as trustees of the borough. This was to comply
with the requirements of the Law of Property Act
1925 in regard to joint property. The deed applied
to the borough (manorial rights) and so much of Lewes
Castle as had not previously been sold, i.e. the Brack
Mount and one or two small pieces of land. Under
the provisions of the same Act these manorial rights
will come to an end in 1940.
The view of frankpledge was held in 'the court of
the borough' by the mid-14th century, (fn. 237) and at Michaelmas 1371, (fn. 238) the view of frankpledge was taken, offences
such as assaults, refusal to serve on the watch, (fn. 239) selling
by false measures, selling unwholesome food, using
unsealed bushels, or putting rubbish and offal on the
high roads, were dealt with; presentments were made
by ale-tasters, and fines taken from those who tenent
cappelboth. The proceedings of this court produced
£19 11s. 9d., of which 13s. 2d. fell to the Archbishop
of Canterbury and 30s. 9d. to the Prior of Lewes. At
subsequent courts the offences included selling under
weight, selling wool by le auncer; and the business
consisted chiefly of pleas of debt and a few cases of
assault. Six courts in all are recorded on the roll. The
borough court already had a dual character, the ordinary court for civil business, and the special sessions
at Michaelmas for the view of frankpledge, often called
lawdays, which gradually acquired the new title of
court-leet. The jury of the leet, together with the
constables and headboroughs, became, as we have
seen, increasingly the governing body of the town.
At the Michaelmas lawday and at the adjourned leet
held a fortnight afterwards, which became known by
the late 18th century, if not earlier, (fn. 240) as the affairing day, the prerogative of the lords is clearly shown.
At the earlier of these two annual courts in Tudor
times the elder constable was chosen by seniority from
the Fellowship of the Twelve, while the younger
was chosen by the elder with the consent of the
jury; here the headboroughs and other minor officials
were chosen by the constables 'without any contradiction or alteration by the stewards'. (fn. 241) At the second
court the accounts of the outgoing constables were
viewed and they handed over the town's property to
the incoming constables. By the late 18th century
things had changed. At the first court the Jury presented certain selected names, usually 'eight in all', as
possible constables and headboroughs; from these the
steward chose two to act as constables and two as
headboroughs. (fn. 242) They were then sworn in by the
steward. (fn. 243) Similarly with the other officials at the adjourned court or affairing day. (fn. 244) Little is known of
the process by which earlier practice was superseded
by this later procedure. (fn. 245)
The three-weekly courts of the borough are never
apparent in the town-books: they presumably fell gradu
ally into disuse. In 1833 it could be observed that there
were in Lewes no courts of record peculiar to the
borough, (fn. 246) while in 1880 it was specifically stated that
the administration of justice was done exclusively by
the magistrates of the county, at petty sessions, held by
them in Lewes weekly. (fn. 247)