Lostwithiel

The borough of Lostwithiel was founded at some point before 1194 by a member of the Cardinan family, then the leading landowners in central Cornwall. When the Cardinans failed in the male line in the mid thirteenth century, the family’s heiress sold a substantial part of her estates, including the caput honorum of Cardinham, to Sir Oliver de Dynham, while the remainder, including Lostwithiel and the nearby castle of Restormel, came into the hands of Henry III’s brother, Richard, earl of Cornwall. In 1268 Earl Richard amalgamated Lostwithiel with the neighbouring village of Penkneth into one borough, but it was only under Richard’s son and heir, Earl Edmund, that the township increased in importance. From 1272 to 1299 Edmund used Restormel castle as his principal residence, and in about 1290 began the construction of the complex of buildings in the town, which after the creation of the duchy of Cornwall in 1337 became known as the ‘duchy palace’, to house the administration of the extensive estates of the earldom, and later of the duchy.1 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 310-11; M. Page, ‘Cornw., Earl Richard and the Barons’ War’, EHR, cxv (2000), 32-33; H. Kleineke, ‘Dinham Fam.’ (Univ. of London Ph.D. thesis, 1998), 23; N.J.G. Pounds, ‘Duchy Palace’, Arch. Jnl. cxxxvi. 203-17.

Lostwithiel’s function as the administrative headquarters of the duchy normally vested in the heir to the throne gave the borough a regional importance which was increased further by its consequent role as a centre of the tin industry. It was here that the main coinage hall and the stannary gaol for the county were located, and it was here that Earl Edmund established the sole staple for tin in the shire, a valuable monopoly which was made permanent by Parliament in 1314, and which gave the burgesses the commercially-valuable institution of a staple court in which bonds of statute staple could be recorded and enforced. This court remained in Lostwithiel even after the tin staple was moved to Dartmouth in 1390 and then further away to Calais in 1392. In the fourteenth century Lostwithiel’s status as one of the most important markets for tin in Europe was further enhanced by its location on the navigable waterway of the river Fowey, which made it the principal port of shipment of this commodity, but by the fifteenth century the gradual silting up of the river had caused the town’s importance in this regard to be superseded by a new port at Fowey at the southern end of the estuary. Yet, any damage Lostwithiel had sustained by the loss of its waterway and the ravages of the Black Death had apparently been offset by an improved rate of tin production, and there is no indication that the burgesses struggled to pay their fee farm or their contribution to successive parliamentary taxes.2 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 311-13.

The burgesses had secured generous concessions from their early Cardinan lords, including some degree of control over the tenure and demise of their burgages, protection from trial in seigneurial courts other than that of the borough (although this was to be presided over by the lord’s steward), and the right to elect portreeves from among their own number. To this, Earl Richard’s charter of 1268 added the right to form a guild merchant, further jurisdictional privileges, freedom of toll throughout Cornwall, a weekly market and an annual fair, which were augmented by a further market in Edward II’s letters of inspeximus of 1325. These liberties were confirmed by Richard II and his Lancastrian successors, in the case of the young Henry VI by assent of the minority council during the first session of the Parliament of 1427.3 CPR, 1377-81, p. 437; 1399-1401, p. 325; 1413-16, p. 129; 1422-9, p. 449.

By this date the borough’s chief officer was its mayor, who presided over the staple court and was directly elected by the burgesses. At the annual elections, held in the borough court, the burgesses also chose a portreeve (still distinct from the mayor at the time of the only recorded elections in the 1390s), to whom it fell to nominate two bailiffs. The election was made, as elsewhere, by an electoral college consisting of a jury of 12.4 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 312. It is possible, although by no means certain, that this was also the method of election adopted for Lostwithiel’s parliamentary representatives. Certainly, in 1467, when Lostwithiel first sealed its own indenture with the sheriff of Cornwall, this was attested only by the mayor and two portreeves (or bailiffs).5 C219/17/1.

Despite Lostwithiel’s primacy as the seat of the duchy of Cornwall’s institutions, there was in the later Middle Ages some disagreement between the boroughs of Cornwall as to where the county courts (and, consequently, the shire elections) should be held. Earl Edmund had intended Lostwithiel to serve as the county town, but Bodmin and Launceston also staked their claims, and although their importance as a meeting place declined over the course of the fourteenth century, in Henry VI’s reign about a third of the documented parliamentary elections were held at Launceston, while the remainder took place at Lostwithiel.6 C219/13/1-16/3.

Lostwithiel had regularly returned Members to Parliament since 1305. No separate election returns for the borough survive from Henry VI’s reign, and the names of its representatives were communicated to Westminster in the form of a schedule accompanying the sheriff’s indenture for the county, as well as, up to 1442, being noted in the indenture itself. On several occasions, these documents show signs of tampering, suggesting the possibility of foul play: the insertion of the name of John Trewint into the schedule of 1422 over an erasure may simply reflect the correction of a scribal error, but similar insertions of the names of Nicholas Arundell and Thomas Giffard in 1431 and 1435, respectively, seem rather more suspicious. Arundell, a gentleman from western Cornwall, was returned at a time when his influential father had strong personal reasons to want a near kinsman in Parliament, while Giffard’s ‘election’ came at a time when he was himself serving as under sheriff of Cornwall, and thus had easy access to the sealed return. It seems likely that the insertion over an erasure of the name of the Northamptonshire lawyer Richard Pitt into the return of November 1449 represented deliberate electoral fraud, not least since the sheriff of Cornwall was the notorious courtier John Trevelyan*, a close associate of the embattled duke of Suffolk.7 C219/15/7.

The names of Lostwithiel’s representatives are known for 17 of the 22 Parliaments of Henry VI’s reign. Twenty-eight men divided the 34 recorded seats between them, but although it was rare for any individual Member to represent the constituency more than once, many of the 28 possessed more parliamentary experience than this figure might imply. As far as it is possible to tell, 15 of the 28 only sat in the Commons a single time, while a further seven only represented Lostwithiel once, but either had previously represented other constituencies, or later went on to do so. Thus, Giffard had previously sat for Liskeard and Barnstaple, Jop alias Bokelly for Bodmin, Lawhire for Truro and Bodmin and Trelawny for Liskeard, while Duraunt went on to represent Warwick in 1467, and Hert acted likewise for Helston, the same borough for which Penpons was later returned a further four times. Over a longer term, six other men gathered impressive parliamentary experience in the service both of the men of Lostwithiel and of other constituencies. Hervy and Richard Kendale each represented the borough three times, as did Cokayn, who in addition sat for Bodmin in 1423. Thomas West was MP for Lostwithiel four times, his first two returns in the reign of Henry V being separated from his final two Parliaments by a long gap of 32 years, and Trewint represented the borough on five occasions, as well as sitting once each for Truro and Liskeard. The most eminent parliamentarian to enter the Commons as one of Lostwithiel’s Members in the period under review was Robert Treage, who over a period of 12 years from 1413 to 1425 served in no fewer than nine Parliaments, albeit only twice for Lostwithiel.8 Of Richard Hervy’s and Robert Treage’s multiple returns for Lostwithiel only one each fell within the period under review.

Whether these statistics were in any way indicative of a concern on the part of the burgesses to be represented by men with prior knowledge of parliamentary affairs is hard to tell: the 16 seats which between 1422 and 1460 were taken by men who had previously sat in the Commons, were exceeded slightly by 18 seats taken by complete novices. The impression that experience did matter at least to some degree is strengthened by the fact that in five of the 17 Parliaments for which the names of Lostwithiel’s MPs are known both seats were taken by men with prior parliamentary experience (between December 1421 and 1425 John Trewint was directly re-elected on every occasion), and in a further six Parliaments at least one of the borough’s MPs had previously sat in the Commons. It thus seems that until the end of the 1420s at least an older pattern of representation continued: under the first two Lancastrian Kings 15 of the 27 seats for which names are known had previously sat in the Commons, while under Richard II (in the period 1386-97) ten of 18 available seats had been taken by complete novices: as returns are not known to survive for nine Parliaments during this period, it is likely that the collective parliamentary experience of Lostwithiel’s MPs was in fact rather greater.9 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 777.

From 1413 it was a statutory requirement that the parliamentary representatives of the English boroughs should be resident in their constituencies, and if not all of Lostwithiel’s representatives in the period up to 1421 had met this requirement, their successors failed to do so even more dramatically. Just six of Lostwithiel’s MPs in the reign of Henry VI (Hervy, Richard and Thomas Kendale, Lower, Luccombe, Sperk and Wolley) were local men, while 16 came from other parts of Cornwall. Six would appear to have been complete outsiders: Giffard came from Devon, Duraunt from Warwickshire, Condorov and perhaps also Davell were Londoners, while West lived in Suffolk, and Pitt divided his time between Westminster and Northamptonshire. Nevertheless, several of these apparent outsiders had close ties with Lostwithiel, and were probably familiar figures to its burgesses. Thus, West had begun his career in the household of Thomas Jayet†, the warden of the Cornish stannaries, and had as likely as not visited Lostwithiel either in his master’s company or on his business. Similarly, Condorov was a grandson of Henry Cokayn, feodary of the duchy from 1369 to 1371, and nephew of Thomas Cokayn, whom he followed into the Commons. Giffard’s office of under sheriff of Cornwall frequently brought him to the seat of the duchy on official business, and most Cornishmen from elsewhere in the county would be drawn there to attend the county and stannary courts, or to present tin for coinage.

As the administrative centre of the duchy of Cornwall, Lostwithiel might have been a prime target for duchy servants seeking seats in Parliament, but it is difficult to establish to what extent the burgesses bowed to pressure from the duchy authorities. Many of the duchy’s servants were themselves established members of the borough community, and might thus gain election as much by their local credentials as by the efforts of Lostwithiel’s overlord. It is nevertheless worth noting that, the family connexions of Condorov and West aside, a further eight MPs themselves held duchy office, mostly before or at the time of their election by the burgesses of Lostwithiel. Hervy and Sperk had served as sub bailiffs of Blackmore stannary prior to their elections, and the former had in addition been pesager and keeper of the stannary gaol, while Richard Kendale was the serving bailiff of Blackmore at the time of two of his three elections. Lower acted as deputy to the receiver-general of the duchy both at the time of his return for Lostwithiel and for some years after; Giffard, Lawhire and Penpons had all been under sheriffs of Cornwall (an indirect duchy appointment made by the deputy through whom the duke, as sheriff in fee, executed the office), and Lawhire also later served as duchy havener, an office which Treage held too, some years after his return.

As the duchy of Cornwall was in the King’s hands for much of the reign of Henry VI, its parliamentary seats were periodically also open to members of the royal household with no direct connexion with the duchy’s administrative structures. By the time of his first return for Lostwithiel in this period, West was clerk of the market of the Household and Jop alias Bokelly was a ‘valet’ of the King’s chamber and a yeoman of the Crown. Several of their peers were not as directly connected to the Household, but had at least held offices under the Crown. Treage had been collector of customs in the Cornish district of Plymouth and Fowey, where Condorov had been controller, while Giffard had held the collectorship in the neighbouring district of Exeter and Dartmouth. Jop alias Bokelly had been escheator of Devon and Cornwall and Trewint had served as a tax collector and county coroner in Cornwall. Hert was a serving clerk of the Exchequer at the time of his election, and West had held a number of government appointments in the south-east. Subsequent to their parliamentary service, a number of the borough’s Members received a variety of Crown appointments, but only in the case of Trevanion may there have been a direct connexion, as he was included in a royal commission while a sitting MP.

By contrast, it was (as far as it is possible to tell in the absence of detailed borough records) rather more uncommon for Lostwithiel’s MPs to have held office locally. Hervy and Lower were serving as clerks of the staple court at the time of their returns for Lostwithiel, and only Wolley later became mayor of the town, albeit some nine years after representing it in the Commons. Conversely, several MPs went on to hold local office elsewhere in Cornwall, and Nicoll, Treouran and Trelawny respectively served as mayors of Bodmin, Truro and Launceston.

In view of this impressive record of office-holding, it is not surprising to find that men of law accounted for a high proportion of Lostwithiel’s MPs. Cokayn, Duraunt, Giffard, Richard Kendale, Lawhire, Penpons, Petit, Pitt, Treage and Trewint all practised the law in one way or another (and Hervy and Lower, the two clerks of the Lostwithiel staple, probably also possessed some professional experience), but only Cokayn, who became recorder of London, rose to any eminence in the profession. Of the remainder, Thomas Kendale, Nicoll and Withiel all had documented interests in the tin industry, although the last also practised the craft of a goldsmith. Treouran, West, Wolley and perhaps Davell were all engaged in trade, while Arundell, Condorov, Luccombe, Trelawny and Trevanion could all consider themselves members of the landed gentry. Thus, professional men-of-law accounted for more than half (at least 18 out of 34) of Lostwithiel’s parliamentary seats in Henry VI’s reign, a substantial increase compared to the period 1386-1421, when just six out of the 46 seats for which names are recorded were taken by lawyers.10 Ibid. 314. The statistic given there has been adapted here to take account of Richard Hervy’s probable legal training.

It is a measure of the narrowness of Cornish political society that several of Lostwithiel’s MPs in the period under review were closely connected by ties of blood and marriage. Nicholas Arundell’s father, Sir John Arundell II*, was brother-in-law to Robert Treage, while Condorov and Richard Kendale were respectively nephews to Cokayn and Thomas Kendale. A few of Lostwithiel’s representatives came from what might be described as ‘parliamentary dynasties’. Arundell, Nicoll, Trelawny and the two Kendales followed their fathers into the Commons, and Hervy was in his turn followed there by his son and grandson. Equally, Luccombe’s brother Thomas* and Treouran’s kinsmen Roger I* and II*, as well as Giffard’s more distant relative Robert Giffard* all saw parliamentary service for a range of south-western constituencies.

The evidence that the electors of Lostwithiel were susceptible to outside influences other than those of Crown and duchy is slight. The tampering evident in Arundell’s return of 1431 may suggest, if anything, that his father was unable to influence the choice of the burgesses, and it is not possible to prove whether Petit and Trevanion, both of whom were connected with the powerful Sir William Bodrugan*, owed their returns to this patron. The election of the complete outsider Duraunt in 1453 has been put down to the influence of the young and tempestuous Henry Holand, duke of Exeter, who in that year secured a number of south-western borough seats for his supporters, but, in fact, no direct connexion between Duraunt and the duke has been discovered.