Chipping Wycombe

Situated in the Thames valley and a centre for agriculture and the wool and cloth trades, Chipping Wycombe was the only parliamentary borough in Buckinghamshire in Henry VI’s reign. Along with Aylesbury, it was one of the two most important towns in the county but it was not of any great size. In the late fourteenth century the borough had about 700 inhabitants (the wider parish of Wycombe had some 900), but there was at least some depopulation during the first half of the fifteenth and, perhaps, beyond. In the spring of 1459, for example, an important messuage known as ‘Dawes’ lay vacant for want of a tenant. It is nevertheless unlikely that the economic history of the borough in this period is one of straightforward decline. It still attracted immigrants, including two natives of the Low Countries who had taken up residence there in the mid 1430s, after swearing an oath of fealty to the Crown. In all likelihood, they had found employment in the local cloth trade.1 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 277-81; St. George’s Chapel, Windsor, recs., XV/15/1, m. 1d; CPR, 1429-36, pp. 557, 558. The Thames valley was a centre for lollardy throughout the later Middle Ages and there were instances of the heresy at Wycombe in the early fifteenth century, in Edward IV’s reign and at the beginning of the sixteenth century.2 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 279; J.A.F. Thomson, Later Lollards, 69, 71, 82, 86. While it is impossible to link any of Wycombe’s known MPs in the period under review with it, John Brian, a Wycombe burgess who took part in the lollard rising instigated by Sir John Oldcastle† in the winter of 1413-14, counted Thomas Merston, one of the MPs of 1426, as an associate.3 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 279.

Like most of the parish of Wycombe, the borough fell within the bounds of the duchy of Lancaster manor of Bassetsbury, although in 1422 this lordship was part of the dower estates of Henry V’s widow, Queen Katherine, and did not revert to the duchy until after her death in January 1437.4 VCH Bucks. iii. 117; PROME, x. 52. After she died, the Crown granted the stewardship of Bassetbury to Sir William Phelip†, chamberlain of the King’s household, who took over from her appointee, Sir John Harpenden. Quickly superseding this appointment was a fresh grant of 22 Feb. 1437, to Phelip and William de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, in survivorship, and Suffolk held the office alone after Phelip’s death in 1441, presumably until his own death in 1450.5 CPR, 1436-41, pp. 32, 44. The burgesses paid an annual fee farm rent of £30 13s. 4d. to the manor; in return, their town enjoyed the status of an independent borough governed by its own court. Both judicial and administrative in function, the court wielded exclusive jurisdiction over the borough, the guild merchant and the local religious guild of the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was presided over by the mayor, assisted in his duties by two bailiffs, who enacted the court’s decrees and collected the fee farm, and various lesser officials, among them a town clerk and an under bailiff. Presumably the mayor was usually one of the leading burgesses, although in 1498 the borough felt it necessary to decree that he should come from the ranks of its ruling oligarchy or ‘counsell howse’, suggesting that men of lesser status may have succeeded in attaining the office in the past. The elections of the mayor and bailiffs took place annually but their terms overlapped rather than coincided since that for the mayor occurred on the Thursday before Michaelmas and that for the bailiffs on Lady Day (25 Mar.). The guild merchant was central to the commercial life of the town, because the liberty of trading in the borough was restricted to its members, the free burgesses of Wycombe. Every burgess’s eldest son was entitled to join the guild upon his father’s death (on payment of a fine of 10½d.), although non-natives who became burgesses must also have paid entry fines to gain admittance to the guild. By the later Middle Ages the borough possessed privileges and liberties that were sufficiently well established to provide an exemplar for other urban communities. A charter which the King granted the men of Kingston-upon-Thames, Surrey, in 1441 confirmed that they enjoyed the right to control the assize of bread and ale and the office of clerk of the market in their town, in the same manner ‘as the towns of Wycombe and Windsor or any other borough in the realm’.6 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 279; First Ledger Bk. High Wycombe (Bucks. Rec. Soc. xi), pp. x-xi; CChR, vi. 20.

The evidence for Wycombe’s parliamentary representation in Henry VI’s reign is far from complete. During the reign, at least 24 men sat for the borough but it is conceivable that it had as many as 34 MPs in this period, since its returns to the Parliaments of 1439, 1445, 1455, 1459 and 1460 are no longer extant. At least five of the 24, Robert Cotyngham, Thomas Merston, Thomas More, William Stocton and John Welsbourne II, were natives of Wycombe and the great majority of them, like the men who sat for the borough in the three and a half decades immediately preceding 1422,7 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 280. resided there. Fowler and Halley were non-resident outsiders, although the latter acquired property there after representing Wycombe in the Commons. Two others, Durem and Whaplode, were ‘semi-outsiders’, since Durem had family connexions with Wycombe and both he and Whaplode possessed property interests there at the time of their elections.

The family backgrounds of the MPs – where known – do not reveal any real traditions of parliamentary service although a few of them came from families with more than a passing association with the Commons, as did some of those who represented the borough in the period 1386-1421. John Welsbourne I was the son-in-law of William atte Halle†, one of the MPs for Wycombe in the Parliament of November 1414, and the father of John Welsbourne II. In turn, the latter was the father of Thomas Welsbourne†, who represented the borough in 1478. Roger and Thomas More were father and son, as were the Cotynghams, and Michael Fayrwell was the father of Thomas Fayrwell†, elected for Wycombe in 1472. Fowler was a nephew of two knights of the shire for Buckinghamshire in several Parliaments of the early fifteenth century, John Barton† and John Barton I*, and the father of Richard Fowler†, who sat for the county in the Parliament of 1467.

There is limited evidence for the occupations of the 24. Merston was probably a farmer or grazier and Blakpoll, Colard, Robert Cotyngham and Justicer pursued trades connected with the local cloth industry: Blakpoll was a draper, Colard and Cotyngham were mercers and Justicer was a weaver. The chances are that Stocton had a stake in that industry as well, since he was probably a clothier or wool merchant, even though contemporaries recognized him as a ‘gentleman’ late in his life. In common with many other Wycombe burgesses, he probably had commercial dealings with London, not least because his younger brother, John Stocton, was a prominent mercer in the City. At least two of the MPs, Clopton and Whaplode, were lawyers and Fayrwell, Durem and Fowler were probably also members of that profession. It might therefore appear that by Henry VI’s reign men of law had become more numerous than hitherto in the parliamentary representation of Wycombe, since Andrew Sperlyng* is the only certain lawyer among its known MPs of the period 1386-1421. It would appear that many of these earlier representatives were local traders and yeoman farmers of no great note, although this must remain a tentative conclusion, given the gaps in the evidence for the representation of the borough in those years. The same qualification applies with regard to the apparent increase in the number of gentry since the previous period.8 Ibid. 281. Stocton was not the sole ‘gentleman’ among the 24, since Fowler was another member of the gentry, as were most, if not all, of the other lawyers or putative lawyers. Two of the lawyers, Clopton (a ‘donsel’ as a young man) and Whaplode were esquires, a status also enjoyed by Thomas More (whose father, Roger, was a ‘gentleman’), the younger John Welsbourne, Halley and Hill. In spite of the gaps in the evidence, it is clear that, in common with many other boroughs, the social standing of Wycombe’s MPs continued to rise between the end of Henry VI’s reign and the mid Tudor period, when its parliamentary seats commonly fell to lawyers and gentry.9 The Commons 1509-58, i. 40.

There is no evidence for the incomes, landed or otherwise, of any of the MPs, although the lawyers and gentry among them must have counted among the wealthiest, particularly Halley and Whaplode, who were both substantial enough to sit in other Parliaments as knights of the shire. A minor member of the Household, Halley benefited from the misguided largesse of the King, from whom he received a steady stream of grants and other rewards, while Whaplode’s wealth rested on his flourishing legal career. As one might expect, they and the likes of Fowler and Durem owned estates outside Wycombe, either in Buckinghamshire or beyond, but several of the more typical burgesses also held lands elsewhere. Justicer appears to have had interests in Oxfordshire, possibly his native county; the Welsbournes possessed lands elsewhere in Buckinghamshire and in Oxfordshire; and through his marriage Stocton acquired interests at Bradford-on-Avon in Wiltshire.

Evidence for the MPs’ careers as office-holders within the borough is more precise than that for their wealth, if very limited. Merston, the elder John Welsbourne, Blakpoll and Robert Cotyngham served one or more terms as mayor, as probably did Stocton,10 It is possible that the burgess who held the mayoralty in 1426-7 was Stocton’s father and namesake. although Blakpoll and Cotyngham did not attain the mayoralty until after sitting in their only known Parliaments. It is likely that others among the 24 held that office as well, and that Robert Cotyngham was not the only man among them to become one of Wycombe’s bailiffs, a position in which he served well before his election in 1435. Even so, most of the MPs would appear never to have held borough office, or not to have done so before entering Parliament, although it is impossible to ascertain whether this picture reflects a lack of evidence rather than the reality. It may indeed reflect the limitations of the evidence, since a majority of them were sufficiently involved in local affairs to attest at least one of Wycombe’s parliamentary elections. (The ten not known to have done so included Clopton, Durem, Fowler, Halley and Whaplode, all men with interests and careers elsewhere.) Furthermore, at least two of the MPs exercised an active role in local affairs through holding offices at Wycombe that lay outside the borough’s jurisdiction. After sitting in his only known Parliament, Blakpoll served as bailiff of Bassetsbury for many years. Less significantly, Colard was warden of All Saints, the parish church of Wycombe, at the beginning of his career.

Whether or not they played any part in the government of the borough, the MPs did not necessarily lack administrative experience when taking up their seats. Several of them had already played a part in the affairs of the wider county of Buckinghamshire before first entering Parliament, whether through attesting the returns of its knights of the shire or by holding office under the Crown there or in other counties. Only Durem held national office at Westminster, although he did not become a baron of the Exchequer until over a decade after sitting for Wycombe. At least three of the 24 exercised responsibilities on royal estates in Buckinghamshire. Clopton served as bailiff of those lands there and in Bedfordshire assigned to Henry IV’s widow, Queen Joan, a position he perhaps already held when elected in 1422. One of his successors as such was Fowler, although the latter did not take up office until after sitting in his last known Parliament. Fowler also served as verderer of Bernwood, the royal forest covering parts of Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire, but it is unclear if he began his tenure of office before first gaining election for Wycombe. Whaplode, on the other hand, was the duchy of Lancaster’s feodary in Buckinghamshire and Bedfordshire, an office he held for over 40 years, throughout his parliamentary career. One of his immediate successors as feodary was Fowler but, once again, the latter did not hold that position until after he had apparently sat for Wycombe for the last time.

While there is no direct evidence of external interference in parliamentary elections at Wycombe, the borough returned several members of the King’s household to the Commons, and it is very likely that their ties with the royal establishment helped them to secure their seats. Apart from Halley, at least two other MPs, John Welsbourne II and Thomas More, fall into this category, as probably do Hill and, perhaps, Martin, Redeshull and Heynes. Clopton also possessed something of a royal connexion, since he served as clerk of the courts of St. George’s chapel, Windsor, a few years before his election in 1422. Halley and the younger Welsbourne were yeomen of the Crown when they represented Wycombe in the Commons, with the former subsequently rising to become an usher of the Chamber and one of the King’s sewers. Wycombe must have held attractions for royal servants seeking a seat in the Commons, since it was conveniently close to Windsor and London, and it came into greater contact with the Crown than most boroughs of comparable size. Henry VI visited the town in October 1438, July 1440, August 1441, January, April, August and September 1445, August 1447, September 1452, March 1453, August 1456 and July 1459. In August 1441 he was in Wycombe on the 4th and 5th, in August 1447 on the 1st and 2nd, and in September 1452 on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th, raising the possibility that he stayed overnight there on some occasions.11 CPR, 1436-41, pp. 219, 433; 1452-61, p. 661; B.P. Wolffe, Hen. VI, pp. 362, 364-6, 370. It is also worth noting that Thomas Chaucer* and his son-in-law, William de la Pole, earl of Suffolk, both extremely well connected members of the Lancastrian court, dominated the Thames valley in which Wycombe lay for much of the reign, and that several household men served as steward of Bassetsbury. The borough did not necessarily have those MPs with definite or possible links to the Household foisted upon it, not least because a parliamentary career appears to have held less attraction for the typical townsman as the reign progressed. In any case, Welsbourne and Thomas More were natives of Wycombe as well as members of the royal establishment, and Hill, Martin and Redeshull were all resident burgesses. As for Halley, while there is no evidence that he possessed property in Wycombe at the time of his election to the Parliament of 1437, he was farming out lands he held there to his fellow household man, Thomas More, by the early 1450s. In short, there is every possibility that the burgesses welcomed the opportunity to elect men linked to both the borough and the Crown, in the expectation that a royal servant might exploit his connexions on the borough’s behalf.12 But the borough appears not to have sought or to have obtained any additional charters or privileges in this period. Given their potentially useful professional expertise, a similar line of reasoning might have motivated the borough to return some of the lawyers among the 24.

Just three of the MPs certainly possessed patrons other than the Crown, and none of them was a typical burgess. First, for most of his life Whaplode was a servant of Henry Beaufort, bishop of Winchester and cardinal of England. Secondly, his fellow lawyer, Clopton, found a patron in the influential Richard Wyot*, who probably helped him to secure the position of clerk of the manorial courts of St. George’s chapel, Windsor. Wyot was a friend of the considerably more influential Thomas Chaucer, and in due course Clopton came to serve Chaucer and his son-in-law, the earl of Suffolk, as a feoffee. Thirdly, Fowler was a tenant of Humphrey Stafford, earl of Stafford and duke of Buckingham, but there is no evidence that he was a Stafford retainer. Yet it is impossible to ascertain to what (if any) extent these three MPs owed their parliamentary careers to their patrons.

In spite of the loss of five of its returns, it is clear that Wycombe’s parliamentary representatives in the first decade of Henry VI’s reign were generally more experienced than their successors. During that decade there was only one Parliament, that of 1429, in which both MPs were newcomers to the Commons. Moreover, John Coventre sat in the successive Parliaments of 1422 and 1423 and the two MPs of 1431 were re-elected in 1432. By contrast, all of the borough’s representatives in the next three Parliaments were newcomers. The missing returns render speculative any conclusions regarding the last 11 Parliaments of the reign, but it would appear that both MPs of 1453 were likewise novices and that one of the burgesses in each of the Parliaments of 1442, 1447, February and November 1449 and 1450 had never sat in the Commons before. The two most experienced Members among the 24 were Roger More and Coventre, both of whose parliamentary careers ended in the early 1430s. More represented Wycombe in at least eight Parliaments and Coventre in at least five. Whaplode, John Cotyngham, Merston, Martin and Halley all sat in at least three Parliaments, as probably did Stocton, but Whaplode and Halley were each elected for Wycombe just once. Cotyngham’s first Parliament was that of 1399, and Coventre, Merston, Roger More (a Member of four successive Parliaments in the latter half of Henry V’s reign) and Whaplode likewise first sat before 1422. Apart from Whaplode, returned for Buckinghamshire in 1420 and 1433, and Halley, who sat for Hertfordshire in the Parliaments of February 1449 and 1453, only Fayrwell, returned for Bramber in 1459, certainly sat for another constituency. There is no evidence of any prior connexion between Fayrwell and Bramber, but it is possible that he was a lawyer like his son Thomas and was elected by that Sussex borough for his professional expertise.

At Wycombe, parliamentary elections took place in response to a precept from the sheriff of Buckinghamshire. Having chosen their representatives (although in what manner is not known), the burgesses informed the sheriff of the result, which the sheriff returned to Chancery. By this period, the returns took the form of indentures, between the sheriff on the one hand and the attesting burgesses on the other. Almost all of the extant indentures are in Latin (only that of 1447 is in English), with all but two of them being made at Wycombe. Those for the Parliaments of 1449 (Nov.) and 1453 were made at Aylesbury, the venue for the elections of the knights of the shire for Buckinghamshire, and are the only ones to bear the same date as the corresponding county elections. Four of the other 15 indentures were drawn up before the county election was held (a whole month earlier in the case of that for 1422) and 11 afterwards. A majority of the indentures do not record the offices of any of the attestors. Just two, those for the Parliaments of 1433 and February 1449, identify the leading attestor as the mayor, although the first-named burgess in the indenture for 1423, John Welsbourne I, held the office when the parliamentary election of that year took place. Yet the leading attestor was not necessarily the mayor. Hill headed those in the indenture for 1442 but John Hampden was then mayor. Likewise, Hampden was the first of the witnesses in 1447 but the mayor at that date was one of his fellow attestors, Robert Cotyngham. Hampden was also the first-named burgess in the indenture for the Parliament of November 1449 but the mayor was not among the attestors. Each of the indentures for the first four elections of the reign bears the names of 12 burgesses, but after 1426 the attestors varied in number from as few as six in 1447 and 1453 to as many as 20 in 1450. The Parliaments of 1447 and 1453 met in auspicious political circumstances for the royal court but it is impossible to say whether the circumstances of their summoning could have had any bearing on Wycombe’s elections to them.