|
The History and Antiquities of the County of Dorset (3rd Edition published 1868) Transcribed by Michael Russell OPC for Dorchester - May 2010 - Last updated Mar 2017 DORCHESTER DIVISION. THE TOWN AND BOROUGH OF DORCHESTER. The Arms of Dorchester - 1565 The following is a copy of a confirmation in the possession of the corporation :— These be the seales of auncientie used by the Bayllyffes, Constables, and Burgessys of the towne and Boroughe of Dorchester, which seales I, Clarencieulx King of Armes of the sowthe, easte, and weaste parties of this realme of Englande, have not onelye ratefyed and confirmed unto the saide Bayllyffs, Constables, and Burgesses of the saide towne and Boroughe of Dorchester, but have also recorded the same in the registers of my vysytacion (visitation) now made within the countie of Dorcett; and at this present was Owen Hayman and William Aden bayllyffs, Christopher Hole recorder, John Haywarde under stewarde and coroner, John Stratforde, John Corbyn, John Palmer, Nycholas Lymster, Morgan Hayne, Luke Aden, John Chubbe, burgesses of the said towne and borough. In wyttnes whereof I, the saide Clarencieulx, have hereunto subscrybed my name the xxth of September, 1565 William HERVY, alias Clarencieulx King of Armes. 1565. John DAVYE - Constable. Hugh GRINDHAM - Constable Die et anno supradicto. At the top two seals are tricked. The one having in front of a castle triple-towered and masoned, a shield bearing France and England quarterly, and the following legend in the margin " SIGILLVM BALLIVORVM DORCHESTRIÆ" The second seal has two fleurs de lis above and below the word "Dorchestre," and in the margin " COMITATUS DORCESTRIÆ." Parliamentary Representation The right of election of members of parliament was formerly claimed by the inhabitants paying scot and lot. Persons, however, seised or possessed of real estates within the borough, and who paid the church and poor rates for the same, thouggi neither inhabitants nor occupiers, have exercised and enjoyed an equal right for more than a century past. (Note:- Hutchins has started each line with the regnal year of the monarch - I have added the Anno Domini year in brackets)
26 (1297) York. Henry le Glede, John Batyn. 28 (1299) Lincoln. Nicolas Blakemore, Thomas Crubbe. 28 (1299) London. William Cole, Nicholas de Boys. 30 (1301) ---------Walter Sparrow, Hugh Chyke. 33 (1304) Westminster. William le Marescall,(1) William Cole. 34 (1305) ---------Thomas .......William Bryan. 35 (1306) Carlisle. Roger de Pigot, Walter de Warham.
2 (1308) Westmister. William Cole, John de Milton. 5 (1311) London. Richard le Maule, Adam Glyde. 6 (1312) Westminster. John Eustach, Richard Snow. 7 (1313) -------------William Cole, Henry Dysell. 8 (1314) -------------William Cole, Nicolas Boys. 15 (1321) -----------William Marescall, Bennet Bagenham. 16 (1322) York. Bennet Bagenham, John Herring. 19 (1325) Westminster. Richard Dite, or Tite, John Herring.
2 (1327/8) Northampton. John le Greet, John le Neve. 2 (1327/8) New Sarum. Richard Tite, William Oure, or Eure. 4 (1329/30)Winchester. Richard Tite, John Herring. 6 (1331/2) Westminster. Clement Durneford, Thomas Atte See. 9 (1334/5) York. Clement Durneford, Geffrey de Bulstrode. 9 (1334/5) Westminster Clement Durneford, John Moryn. 10 (1335/6) Council at Nottingham. Richard Tite, John Martyn [f. Moryn.] 11 (1336/7) Westiminster Richard Tite, Stephen le Here. 12 (1337/8) Northampton. Stephen Wydcomb, John Constantyn. 12 (1337/8) Westminster Clement Durneford, James Husee. 14 (1339/40) ------------William Jurdaine, John Constantyn. 15 (1340/1)--------------William Jurdaine, John Muster. 17 (1342/3) ------------- John de Excestre, William Atte :Yate. 20 (1345/6) --------------Thomas le Trente, William Oure. 21 (1346/7) --------------John de Herring, William Eure. 22 (1347/8)-------------- William Russel, Stephen Hore. [f. Here.] 24 (1349/50)------------- Richard Norway, Robert le Merchant. 25 (1350/51)------------- Richard Norway, Robert le Merchant. 28 (1353/4) -------------- Robert Bredport, Robert Bemynstre. 29 (1354/5) --------------John de Frampton, Robert Wratham. 31 (1356/7) ------------- Robert Syward, John Pyk. 31 (1356/7) ------------- William Hammond, John Frampton 34 (1359/60) ------------ Richard Gerard, John le Young. 34 (1359/60) ------------Richard Gerard, William Leycestre. 36 (1361/2) ------------- John Frompton, Richard Gerard. 37 (1362/3) ------------- John Frome, or Frompton, William Pudele. 42 (1367/8) ------------- William Miche, Richard Gerard. 45 (1370/1) Council at Winchester John Champayn. 46 (1371/2) Westminster William Hammond, Thomas Camwell 47 (1372/3) -------------- Richard Dorchestre, William Pudele 50 (1375/6) --------------return lost.
2 (1378) Gloucester. John Dedele, John Atte Welle. 3 (1379) New Sarum. Richard Tite, William Our. 6 (1382) Westminster. Richard Blount, Thomas Lamer. 7 (1383)-------------- Peter Blount, Richard Dorchester. 7 (1383) New Sarum. Peter Blount, Thomas Lamer. 8 (1384) Westminster Robert Button, Thomas Lamer. 9 (1385) -------------Peter Blount, Henry Cravel. 10 (1386) ------------Peter Blount, Henry Cravel. 11 (1387) ------------John Perlee, Thomas Lamer. 12 (1388) Cambridge Thomas Gardiner, William Chuse. 15 (1391) Westminster Thomas Lamer, John Gould. 17 (1393) ------------William Pullhare, William Atte Ashe. 18 (1394) ------------Thomas Husee, John Blount. 20 (1396) Westminster Robert Veele, John Jurdane, 21 (1397) ------------Robert Gatton, John Jurdane,
2 (1400) ------------- John Jurdaine, John Bemell. 5 (1403) ------------- John Jurdaine, John Blount. 8 (1406) Gloucester. John Jurdaine, John Skennet.
2 (1413/4) ------------- John Jurdaine, Richard Berell. 3 (1414/5) --------------- The cedule wanting. 5 (1416/7) ------------ Robert Veele, John Ford. 7 (1418/9) Gloucester Richard Hide, John Hide. 8 (1419/20) Westminster John Stork, John Ford. 9 (1420/21) ------------ John Ford, Robert Mose.
2 (1423) ------------- John Ford, John Byshop. 3 (1424) ------------- John Jurdaine, William Taylur. 4 (1425) Leicester. Henry Sherard, Thomas Oliver. 6 (1427) Westminster. Robert Mose, Henry Sherrard. 8 (1429) ------------- Robert Hillary, John Byshop. 9 (1430) ------------- William Frampton, William Pelley. 11 (1432) ------------- John Leweston, John Byshop. 13 (1434) ------------- Philip Leweston, John Byshop. 15 (1436) Cambridge. William Kay1wey, William Henton. 20 (1441) Westminster John Faty, John Gerard. 25 (1446) Cambridge. John Sandres, Robert Ayshe. 27 (1448) Westminster Walter Woothe, John Mille. 28 (1449) ------------- William Frampton, William Essex. 29 (1450) Westminster Robert Ashe, John Martyn. 31 (1452) Reading. Robert Bruning, William Steynour. 33 (1454) Westminster Robert Bruning, William Okeden. 39 (1460) ------------- George Middleton, John Brown.
12 (1472/3)-------------John Rockys, John Keyle. 17 (1477/8) ------------Ralph Ahetone, Richard Atte Feld.
7 (1552/3) -----------[Christ. Hele, Q] [William Holeman, Q]
1 (1553) Oxford. Christopher Hele, Owen Heyman.
2 and 3 (1555) -------------- . . . . . . .Robertson, Ralph Perne. 4 and 5 (1557) --------------Christopher Hele, John Hayward, gent.
5 (1562) --------------Thomas Marten, Lewis Montgomery, esqrs. In his room, chosen for Northampton, John Gardner. 14 (1571) -------------Henry Mac Williams, esq. William Adyn, gent. 14 (1571) -------------George Trenchard, esq. George Carleton. 27 (1584) -------------Robert Beale, esq. Thomas Freke, gent. 28 (1585) -------------Robert Beale, Robert Nappier, esqrs. 31 (1588) -------------Robert Beale, Nowell Southerton, esqrs. 35 (1592) -------------Francis James, LL.D. Robert Dabridgcourt, esq. 39 (1596) -------------Robert Ashley, Richard Wright. 43 (1600) -------------Francis Brounker, esq. Matthew Chubbe, gent.
12 (1613/4) ---------- Richard Bushrode, Francis Ashley. 18 (1619/20) -------- Thomas Symonds, knt. treasurer of the household [made his election for Bewdley. In his room Francis Ashley, serjeant at law], John Parkyns, merchant. 21 (1622/3) ---------- William Whiteway, sen. Richard Bushrode, merchants.
1 (1625) -------------Richard Bushrode, Richard Bushrode, merchants 3 (1627) -------------Denzil Holles Esq, John Hill merchant. 15 (1639)------------- Denzil Holles Esq, Dennis Bond Esq. 16 (1640)------------- Denzil Holles Esq, Dennis Bond Esq.(2 & 3)
6 (1653/4) --------------- John Whiteway, esq.(i.e. Commonwealth period) 8 (1655/6) --------------- John Whiteway, esq.(i.e. Commonwealth period) 11 (1658/9) --------------James Gould, esq. John Bulstrode, alderman.(i.e. Commonwealth period) 12 (1659/60) ------------ Denzil Holles Esq, John Whiteway. 13 (1660/1) --------------Denzil Holles Esq, [in his room (i.e. in his place) , made a peer, John Churchill, esq.], James Gould, esq. 14 (1661/2) Westminster. Francis Holles (9), knt. and bart. Nicholas Gould, merchant. 31 (1678/9) Westminster. Francis Holles (9), knt. and bart. Nicholas Gould, merchant. 32 (1679/80) Oxford. James Gould, Nathaniel Bond, Esqrs.
2 (1689/90)------------James Gould, Thomas Trenchard Esq. (William reigned 5 years with Mary before she died in the 6th year on 28 Dec 1693/4 when he continued to rule on his own)
10 (1698) ------------- Robert Napier, knt. and Bart. Nathanael Napier, esq. 12 (1700, 7 January) -- Nathanael Napier, Thomas Trenchard, esq. Candidates:-
Thomas Trenchard, esq. 171 Sir Nath. Napier, bart. 135 -- Coker, esq. 93 (Reign started 8th March 1701/2)
4 (1705, 14 May) ------Awnsham Churchill, Nathanael Napier, esqrs. Candidates:-
Nathanael Napier, esq.. 189 Sir John Darnel, knt. 84 9 (1710, 10 March) --Nathanael Napier, Bart. Benjamin Hoskins Gifford [in his place, deceased, Henry Trenchard, esq.] Candidates:-
Benj. Hoskins Gifford, esq. 155 Dennis Bond, esq. 147 Awnsham Churchill, esq. 116
Henry Trenchard, esq. 161 Awnsham Churchill, esq. 149 George Richards, esq. 88 (Reign started 1st August 1714)
6 (23 April, 1720)-------. On the death of Henry Trenchard, esq. Candidates:-
Abraham Janssen, esq. 132 7 (Note 7 is wrong should be 8) (28 March, 1722) Westminster. Joseph Darner, esq. William Chapple, esq. serjeant at law.Candidates:-
Joseph Darner, esq. 141 William Chapple, esq. 138 George White, esq. 138 (Reign started 11th June 1727)
7 (29 April, 1734)---- Sir William Chapple, knt. [in his room, made judge of the King's Bench, Robert Brown, of Frampton, esq.] John Browne, esq.Candidates:-
Sir William Chapple, kt. 174 Churchill Rose, esq. 76 20 (1747(4))--------- John Browne, esq. [in his place deceased, 1750, John Pitt, esq.(10) ] Nathanael Gundry, esq. In his place, made justice of the Common Pleas, 1750, George Damer, esq. who died March, 1752. In his room George Clavell of Smedmore, esq. 28 March, 1752. 25 (28 March, 1752). On the death of George Damer, esq Candidates:-
Hon. George lord viscount Malpas 113 (Reign started 25th Oct 1760)
8 (1768(7)) ----------John Darner, William Ewer, esqrs. 14 (10 Oct. 1774)--- John Darner and William Ewer, esqrs.Candidates:-
John Darner, esq. 214 Anthony Chapman, esq. 145 [Note:- Anthony Chapman, petitioner. The candidates at the election in 1774 were William Ewer, John Darner, and Anthony Chapman, esqrs. A poll was taken by Richard Cozens, mayor, October 10, in the county hall, who declared the numbers to be for William Ewer, esq. 232; for John Darner, esq. 214; for Anthony Chapman, esq. 145; in consequence of which the two former were returned. Mr. Chapman, on the meeting of the parliament, presented a petition to the House of Commons; another petition was also presented by 17 electors, inhabitants of the borough, complaining, that divers persons were admitted to vote at the last election who were neither inhabitants nor occupiers of real estates within the said borough, who had no right; by means whereof, and of other illegal practices, the petitioners' rights and franchises have been greatly infringed, &c. On the 21st of February, 1775, these petitions were heard by a committee of the House of Commons, balloted for to determine the merits of the late election. The arguments employed by the counsel, both at the election and before the committee, were in substance as follow: For the petitioners it was urged by Mr. Lee, that, as the right of election for this borough is vested in the several persons paying to church and poor, it must be understood to be in such persons as are liable by law to pay the same: and that a payment made by persons not objects of taxation, will not entitle them to vote; that the law has imposed these assessments on occupiers only, not on the landlord or owner, unless he be the occupier, it being a tax in respect of occupation; and that, therefore if the landlord, who is not the occupier, should be assessed, he is not compellable to pay such assessment, and that even should he submit to the payment of it, he would not thereby acquire this franchise of voting; for, in such a case, he is only the hand that pays the rate on behalf of the tenant; that therefore no owner of a house raited, unless he should also be the occupier, could legally vote for the same, but that the occupier, who alone is rateable by law, and by law only compellable to pay such rate, is the voter, in the legal and true construction of the resolution of the House of Commons 1720. To these arguments it was replied, in behalf of the sitting members, that, by the resolution of 1720, there are two species of voters described, 1st, inhabitants paying to church and poor in respect of their personal estate; 2dly, such persons as pay to church and poor in respect of their real estates. In regard to these last, the word persons being used instead of inhabitants shews it to be quite immaterial whether such voter is an inhabitant or not; and that the only circumstance requisite to secure to him this privilege is, that he is seised of a house, &c. rated to church and poor, and that he pays such rates, or re-pays it to his tenant by an allowance in his rent. That the resolution in 1720, being founded on the petition, which sets forth the right of election to be in such as pay to the church and poor in respect of any real estate they are seised or possessed of, the only true construction of it is, that the franchise of voting was considered as, and intended should be, vested in the owner, whose real estate should be in any manner charged to the church and poor, and who shall have paid accordingly. That the word rated being omitted in the petition and resolution, and the word pay only inserted, implies the franchise to be annexed to the person who, bond fide, bears the burthen; that the resolution is founded on the petition; that both taken together establish that right, which cannot be affected by the argument of the present petitioner, founded on the legal construction of the poor laws; that the remedy of recovering the poor rates by distress on the occupier was only to obviate any difficulty that might happen in supporting the poor if the owner lived at a distance, or was not to be found; but that the church rate (which is as essential and necessary to be paid) is not distrainable for on the occupier, but recoverable by other methods, and to which the land itself is liable; and, lastly, that a constant, uniform, and uninterrupted usage of the right of voting in the owners of houses rated to church and poor (if such owners pay the rates, or allow them to their tenants by a deduction in their rent), has been uniformly adhered to without any objection at all controverted elections, from the earliest time within the memory of man; and particularly, that, in the years 1720 or 1722, when the elections were determined by petitions to the House, several persons voted under this right, as owners of houses paying to church and poor, in the occupation of their several tenants;' yet no objection was made to them, which most certainly would have been made if this usage had not been well understood to be the true sense and meaning of this resolution. Mr. Mansfield (one of the counsel for Mr. Ewer),in the course of his pleading, said, inter alia, " If an owner knows himself to be rated, and does not complain, my opinion is, that he is liable to be distrained on; and, as to what is called legally paying, it is not necessary that a man should pay under legal compulsion; it is sufficient, if he pays so legally, that he cannot recover his money again." The Committee, after having examined every poll taken in the borough for the choice of representatives from the year 1700, and compared them with the church and poor rates, after hearing a variety of evidence produced on both sides, and attending to the pleadings of the counsel, communicated to the parties their determination, as appears in the resolution of Feb. 23, 1775. And they reported to the House of Commons," That John Darner, esq. and that William Ewer, esq. were duly elected to serve in parliament as representatives for the borough of Dorchester." 23 (31 Mar 1784) ---Hon. George Damer, William Ewer, esq 29 (04 Jul 1789) ----Thomas Ewer, in the room of [i.e. in place of) his brother William Ewer esq deceased. 30 (30 Jan 1790) --- Hon. Cropley Ashley, the hon. George Damer, and Francis Fane, esq. were candidates :
Hon. George Darner 103 Hon. Cropley Ashley 78 (Tendered and rejected by the returning officer 38) 116 Hon. Cropley Ashley, petitioner, against the hon. George Damer. 14 April, 1791, the committee of the House of Commons reported, that the Hon. Cropley Ashley ought to have been returned, and that he was duly elected The petition of the Honourable Cropley Ashley alleged that the returning officer had rejected many legal votes tendered him in favour of the petitioner. The voters thus rejected were persons seised or possessed of real estates assessed to the church and poor, and which rates they actually paid, though they were neither inhabitants nor occupiers ; and thus far they came within the determination of the 23rd of February, 1775. The petition came on to be heard before the Committee on the 8th, and continued till the 14th of April, 1791. At the hearing of this petition the right of voting was more fully and minutely entered into than at the hearing of the petition in 1775. On the part of the Honourable George Damer (the sitting member) it was contended, that, whatever right persons seised or possessed of real estates might have enjoyed at other elections, yet in the present instance, as the owners of such property were not named on the rates, though they might in fact have paid such rates, they had no right to vote at the last election. But, from the evidence of the polls taken at the several elections in 1700, 1705, 1710, 1713, 1722, 1734, 1752, 1768, and 1774, and from the comparison of the polls with the poor rates, and the testimony of several witnesses, the Committee determined that the honourable Cropley Ashley was duly elected, and the right of election to be as set forth in the resolution of April 14, 1791. The right of election of members of Parliament for this borough became therefore clearly ascertained, and finally established, by the following resolution of the House of Commons, and the subsequent determinations thereon: Resolution on the petition of Abraham Janssen, esq. and Robert Browne, esq. 18 May, 1720. "Resolved, that the right of electing burgesses to serve in Parliament for the borough of Dorchester, in the county of Dorset,' is in the inhabitants of the said borough paying to church and poor in respect of their personal estates, and in such persons as pay to church and poor in respect of their real estates, within the said borough. "And that Colliton Row was no part of the borough." Resolution of the Committee on the trial of the petitions of Anthony Chapman, esq. and several inhabitants and electors of the borough, against John Damer and William Ewer, esquires; one of which petitions alleged, that divers persons were admitted to vote who were neither inhabitants nor occupiers of real estates within the borough, and had no right: 23 February, 1775. "Resolved, that it is the opinion of this Committee, that, pursuant to the last determination of the House of Commons, such persons as pay to church and poor in respect of their real estates within the borough of Dorchester, though not inhabitants or occupiers, were entitled to vote at the last election of burgesses to serve in Parliament for that borough." Resolution of the Committee on the trial of the Petition of the Honourable Cropley Ashley against the Honourable George Darner: 14 April, 1791. "Resolved, that, pursuant to the last determination of the House of Commons, the right of electing burgesses to serve in Parliament for the borough of Dorchester, in the county of Dorset, is in the inhabitants of the said borough paying to church and poor in respect of their personal estates, and in such persons as pay to church and poor in respect of their real estates, within the said borough, though not inhabitants or occupiers, and although their names do not appear upon the poor's rate." By the Act 2 and 3 William IV. which is a sort of supplement to the " Act for Amending the Repre- sentation of the People," theboundaries of the pre- sent borough were assigned and set out as follows: From the second or middle bridge on the Sher-borne road, along the northern branch of the river Frome, passing under Grey's bridge, to the point at which such northern branch is met, near Stanton's Cloth Factory, by the boundary of the parish of Fordington; thence, southward, along the boundary of the parish of Fordington, to the point at which the same meets the Wareham road; thence, westward along the Wareham road to the turnpike gate; thence in a straight line to the centre of the Barrow called "Two Barrows;" thence, in a straight line to the centre of the Amphitheatre called " Maumbury Ring ;" thence in a straight line to the centre of the Barrow called " Lawrence Barrow," near the Exeter road; thence in a straight line to the south-western corner of the barrack wall; thence, northward, along the barrack wall and palisade to the point at which such palisade meets the southern branch of the river Frome; thence in a straight line to the second or middle bridge on the Sherborne road. 36 (1796(8)) ---------Hon. Cropley Ashley, Francis Fane, esq. 40 (1799)------------Hon. Cropley Ashley, Francis Fane, esq.. 46 (1805) -----------Hon. Cropley Ashley, Francis Fane, esq. 47 (1806) -----------Hon. Cropley Ashley, Robert Williams, esq. 51 (1810) -----------Charles Henry Bouverie, esq. on the accession of the Hon. Cropley Ashley to the peerage as Earl of Shaftesbury. 52 (1811) -----------Charles Henry Bouverie, esq. and R. Williams, jun. esq. 53 (1812) -----------William A. Cant, esq. in the room of Bouverie, who elected to sit for Downton, Wilts. 57 (1816) -----------Sir Samuel Shepherd, knt. re-elected on his accepting the office of Attorney General. 58 (1817) -----------Robert Williams, esq. Sir Samuel Shepherd, knt. 59 (1818) -----------Charles Warren, esq. in place of Sir S. Shepherd, who had accepted the office of Chief Baron of the Exchequer in Scotland. (Reign started 29th Jan 1820)
7 (1826) Robert Williams, esq. Hon. Wm. Anthony Ashley Cooper. 11 (1830) Henry Charles Sturt, esq. in the room of Anthony William Ashley Cooper, accepted the office of Steward of His Majesty's Hundred of East Hendred. (Reign started 26th June 1830) (First Parliament.)
3 (1832) Robert Williams, esq. and Hon. Anthony Henry Ashley Cooper. 5 (1834) Robert Williams, esq. and Hon. Anthony Henry Ashley Cooper. (Reign started 20th June 1837)
5 (1841) Hon. Anthony Henry Ashley Cooper, Right hon. Sir James Robert George Graham, Bart. 5 ( 1841) 13 Sept. Sir James Graham re-elected. 11 (1847) Right hon. George Lionel Dawson Damer, Henry Gerard Sturt, esq. 16 (1852) Henry Gerard Sturt, esq. Richard Brinsley Sheridan, esq. 20 (1856) Charles Napier Sturt, esq. in room of H. Gerard Sturt, esq. accepted the Chiltern Hundreds. 27 (1863) Charles Napier Sturt, esq. R. B. Sheridan, esq. Sources from Hutchins, and Genealogical Notes:- (1). Writ de expensis for his attendance on the Parliament at Westminster issued for William le Marescal, tested at Westminster, March 20th, 33 Edward I. (2). In an old minute book of the corporation, under the date Feb. 5, 1639: " It is agreed that Mr. Maior be pleased to answeare the Erle of Suffolkes 1're (letter) that when the writs come for the sumons of a parliament that Mr. Maior will publish his lordships 1're (letter)to the townesmen." "Friday, 7th of February, 1639: "Answer to the Earle of Suff. 1're (letter) for a Bur.(Burgess) for the Parliament. "Right hoble (honerable) , having received your lettres by your servant, Mr. Salter, and having considered the contents of them, These are humbly to thank your Lordship for your care for and good intenciones towards this towne therein mencioned, and according to your Lordship's intimacion, I shall, in observance to your honour, (to) morow propose unto the Townesmen heere your Lordship's mynd when I shall have received his Majesty's writt for election of Burgesses for the Parliament; however, by a constitution of this Towne heretofore made, none can be chosen a burgesse for a parliement for us but one that shall be a free burgesse of the borough, and how they can or will dispense with that constitution I cannot yet resolve your honour. And thus, with remembrance of my due respect unto Your Lordship, I humbly take my leave, and shall ever remayne, " Yor (your) lops (Lordships) in all I may to be commanded. "Dorchester, Feb. 9, 1639." The townsmen were evidently opposed to the views of the Earl of Suffolk and the court party on this matter; for "Wednesday, 26 Feb. 1639. "Mr. Maior propownding a question whiche Mr. Salter pressed Mr. Maior to give a resolute answeare whether the towne will choose Sir Dudley Carleton at the Erle of Suffolk's request for burgess of the Parliament, the company thought fitt that the best answer was to give that Mr. Maior had talked with divers of the towne and company, and they resolved to choose townesmen, and some refuse to declare their opinions and choice until the time of choist. (3). The sequel appears under date,-" March 18th, 1689. " Burgesses for Parliament. "This day Mr. Major, Burgesses, and Freemen of this borough did by vertue of the warrant from the sheriff of the county elect and choose the honorable Denzill Holles, esq. and Mr. Dennis Bond one of the capitall burgesses of the same borough to bee burgesses for the same borough for the Parliament to be holden the 13 day of Aprill next. " RICHARD SAVAGE, Major." Oct. 22, 1640. This day the hoble [honourable] Denzell Holles, esq. and Mr. Dennis Bond, one of the aldermen of this borough, were elected burgesses for the borough, for the Parliament to be held 3d Nov. next. In an account of the disposal of certain monies in 1648 appears this item, "Payed to Mr. Denis Bond, for his charges in Parliament which he required of the towne, £200." April 9, 1649. "It is resolved, that on Fryday next wee intend to take into consideration what further to allow Mr. Dennis Bond for his charges and service in Parliament." (4). Hutchins indicates year 20 of the Reign of George II --which started 11th June 1746-- but year 1747 so before 10th June 1747 (5). Hutchins indicates year 27 of the Reign of George II --which started 11th June 1753-- but year 1754 so before 10th June 1754 (6). Hutchins indicates year 1 of Reign of George III - which commenced on 25th Oct 1760 -- but year 1761 so before 24 Oct 1761. (7). Hutchins indicates year 8 of Reign of George III - which commenced on 25th Oct 1767 -- but year 1768 so before 24 Oct 1768. (8). Hutchins indicates year 36 of Reign of George III - which commenced on 25th Oct 1795 -- but year 1796 so before 24 Oct 1796. (9). Francis Holles was the only son by the marriage of Denzil Holles the younger son of the Earl of Clare (who was later to become Lord Holles of Ifield) and Dorothy Ashley the heir of Sir Francis Ashley after whom he was named. (10). John PITT (1706-1787) of Encombe represented Dorchester in Parliament from 1751 to 1761 |