Background Information
Number of seats
2
Constituency business
none discovered.
Date Candidate Votes
1422 RICHARD SECHEVILLE
WILLIAM TAYLE
1423 WILLIAM KETERIDGE
JOHN FORTESCUE
1425 WILLIAM KETERIDGE
JOHN FORTESCUE
1426 ALFRED WONSTON
RICHARD DOBBE
1427 JOHN FITZ
THOMAS WYSE
1429 JOHN JULKIN
THOMAS TREMAYNE I
1431 JOHN FITZ
JOHN DYNOWE
1432 JOHN FITZ OR WALTER PERSON
NICHOLAS FORD
1433 RICHARD SECHEVILLE
HENRY DENBOLD
1435 JOHN JULKIN
HENRY DENBOLD
1437 JOHN WOLSTON
JOHN SPRYE
1439 (not Known)
1442 RICHARD TANKRET
HENRY DENBOLD
1445 (not Known)
1447 WILLIAM GAMBON
WILLIAM KINGSTON
1449 (Feb.) WILLIAM CRUWYS
THOMAS TREMAYNE I
1449 (Nov.) WILLIAM MILFORD II
HENRY DENBOLD
1450 RICHARD TANKRET
WILLIAM KINGSTON
1453 JOHN HONYCHURCH
(not Known)
1455 WILLIAM FRESPOND
ROBERT LANGTON
1459 (not Known)
1460 (not Known)
Main Article

Although the site of the medieval borough of Tavistock had been settled in the earlier Anglo-Saxon period, the borough principally owed its existence to the Benedictine abbey founded there in the tenth century, for it was one of the twelfth-century heads of this house who created the town by separating out part of the abbey’s manor of Hurdwick. For much of the Middle Ages the abbey received an annual rent of over £7 from the borough, the economic status of which had been increased by successive abbots’ grants in 1105 of a weekly market and in 1116 of an annual fair on the feast day of St. Rumon, the abbey’s patron saint. The townsmen’s real wealth was, however, derived from Tavistock’s status as one of the four stannary towns of Devon, where alone the tin mined in the county could be weighed, stamped and sold. This privilege was enshrined in a royal charter in 1305, and in 1327 the burgesses successfully fought off an attempt by the men of Plympton Erle to have the coinage removed to their town. In addition to the burgeoning tin trade, the fifteenth century also saw Tavistock become the centre of the manufacture of a type of woollen cloth known as ‘Tavistocks’, which was exported through the nearby port of Plymouth. As a consequence of these commercial activities, Tavistock, which had been ranked fifth among the Devon boroughs in 1334, when the rates for the standard tax levy of the period were fixed, had by 1445 overtaken Dartmouth in wealth, and was then only outstripped by the ports of Exeter, Plymouth and Barnstaple.1 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 356-7. The townsmen’s new-found wealth found its most visible expression in the partial rebuilding of the parish church between the 1420s and the 1450s in the fashionable perpendicular style, with the addition of a new aisle by the bequest of Constance, widow of Maurice Berd, Robert Boniface and John Wyse* (and stepmother of Thomas Wyse the MP).2 Tavistock Parish Recs. ed. Worth, 119; The Commons 1386-1421, iv. 933.

It is likely that their economic prosperity gave the townsmen a degree of independence from their lord, and unlike their counterparts in some other towns the burgesses of Tavistock seem to have rarely challenged his authority openly. In 1258 there had been a clash between the abbot and the town, but for the following two centuries relations were largely harmonious. There may, nevertheless, have been underlying tensions, for in 1472 a mob of the burgesses led by John Fitz and his son mounted a concerted attack on the abbot’s rent-gatherers and other officials and threatened to burn the abbey itself to the ground.3 SC8/251/12531; CPR, 1467-77, pp. 376-7; KB27/843, rot. 52. For much of Henry VI’s reign, however, the abbey fully controlled public life in the town. Its steward presided over the borough court and appointed the portreeve, although a jury of the ‘portmen’ was allowed to put forward a choice of candidates. The portreeves’ formal duties were restricted to ensuring the payment of the abbot’s burghal dues, but increasingly they also acquired a distinct role in their community in being regularly called upon by their neighbours to lend the authority of their office to local property transactions. It may be an indication of the growing confidence of the increasingly prosperous burgesses that in 1449 the portreeve, Richard Tayle, adopted the style of mayor.4 Trans. Devon Assoc. lxxix. 151. Otherwise, little is known of Tavistock’s internal government, beyond occasional references to two other officers, the bailiff of the abbot’s liberty, and the clerk of the markets. By the early sixteenth century, and probably also rather earlier, some communal affairs were handled by the church wardens of the parish church of St. Eustace.5 The Commons 1509-58, i. 74.

Equally obscure are the franchise and conventions that governed the choice of Tavistock’s parliamentary representatives. Throughout Henry VI’s reign the sheriff of Devon routinely recorded the names of the MPs elected by the boroughs in his county in the same indenture in which he returned the names of the knights of the shire, and sent this to Chancery accompanied by a schedule repeating the names of those elected together with those of their sureties. This is not to suggest that the election of Tavistock’s burgesses took place in the shire court; as elsewhere it was clearly conducted locally and then reported to the sheriff, perhaps by the abbot’s steward, who presided over the borough court and whose presence in the electoral meeting of the county court was explicitly recorded in 1407 and 1413.6 C219/10/4; 11/1. It is possible that the return sent to Westminster by the sheriff did not always reflect the wishes of the Tavistock electorate: on at least two occasions between 1422 and 1460 the sheriff’s indenture and schedule show signs of having been tampered with. In 1432 the indenture named Walter Person as one of the Tavistock MPs, but in the accompanying schedule his name had been erased and that of John Fitz substituted (interestingly, one of the Exeter MPs, Adam Somaster*, was replaced by John Symon* in exactly the same manner).7 C219/14/3. Five years later, in 1437, the name of John Wolston was added into both indenture and schedule over erasures, suggesting that it may have replaced a different one.8 C219/15/1.

Tavistock had regularly sent Members to the Commons since 1295, and the names of its representatives are known for all but four of the 22 Parliaments of Henry VI’s reign, the exceptions being those of 1439, 1445, 1459 and 1460. In the case of the Parliament of 1453, only one of Tavistock’s MPs is recorded, while it is uncertain which of the two possible candidates took one of the borough’s seats in that of the Parliament of 1432. Allowing for the return of Walter Person rather than John Fitz in that year, 24 men shared the available 35 seats between them. As far as it is possible to tell, as many as ten of them (Cruwys, Dobbe, Dynowe, Ford, Frespond, Gambon, Langton, Sprye, Tayle and possibly Person) sat in Parliament only once, but there is nevertheless some suggestion that the burgesses continued to display the same predilection for returning at least one MP with prior parliamentary experience that had characterized their choices in the period 1386-1421. In at least 13 (and possibly 14) of the 18 Parliaments for which we have evidence at least one of Tavistock’s representatives had previously sat in the Commons (compared to 14 out of 19 in the preceding period), and in 1425, 1435 and 1450 both of them had done so. Moreover, in 1435, and possibly also in 1432, one of the borough’s MPs was directly re-elected, while in 1425 this was true of both. There may be in this pattern a hint that the Tavistock electorate’s desire to be represented by men with parliamentary experience was just one facet of a predilection for the familiar: just two of Tavistock’s MPs in the period under review had cut their parliamentary teeth in the service of other constituencies: Alfred Wonston had represented both Totnes and Barnstaple in the reign of Henry IV, and his putative son John Wolston had likewise been chosen by the burgesses of Barnstaple prior to his single election for Tavistock. The remainder of the borough’s MPs in the reign of Henry VI found their first seats in the Devon coinage town, even if several of them carved out for themselves parliamentary careers of some note in the course of which some served other constituencies as well. Denbold represented Tavistock on four occasions between 1433 and November 1449, as did Julkin between 1413 and 1435 (although his service to this constituency was interrupted by an additional return for Plympton Erle in 1423). Secheville appears to have been returned for Tavistock at least five times between 1411 and 1433 (but there is some question as to whether there were in fact two men of this name). Five of the borough’s MPs (Honychurch, Keteridge, Kingston, Tankret and Tremayne) represented Tavistock at least twice, as did John Fitz (who may in addition have served a third time, if he did indeed replace Person in 1432). Both Wonston and Wolston sat in at least four Parliaments (finding their additional seats at Totnes, Barnstaple and Plymouth), and two other men (Milford and Wyse), who, like them, were only returned for Tavistock once, matched this record, the former going on to sit for Wareham, Barnstaple and Helston, and the latter taking his place among the knights of the shire for his native county. The most outstanding parliamentarian to represent Tavistock in Henry VI’s reign, however, was John Fortescue who, apart from his four returns for the borough, sat in the Commons on a further five occasions for Plympton, Totnes, Bath and (as a knight of the shire) for Wiltshire, before attending the Lords following his appointment as chief justice. In this capacity he served as a trier of petitions in no fewer than seven Parliaments.9 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 357 does not take account of his return for Bath in 1433.

A number of Tavistock’s MPs during the period under review could look back on family traditions of parliamentary service, or themselves established such traditions. Wonston and Wolston are believed to have been father and son, and like the latter Milford and Wyse both also followed their fathers into the Commons, while Denbold and Fitz were succeeded there by their respective sons. Honychurch was son-in-law to Julkin (himself grandson of an MP), and was later followed into the Commons by his own grandson, William†. Secheville descended from a long line of parliamentarians, while Fortescue was a member of an extensive family, many of whose scions (including the chief justice’s brother and two of his nephews) sat in Parliament at one time or another.

Along with a tendency to return men with prior parliamentary experience, the Tavistock electorate evidently retained a preference for those with strong local credentials. No fewer than 13 of the 24 MPs in this period resided in the town (figures comparable with the 13 out of 25 in the period 1386-1421). Of the remainder two came from the neighbouring parishes of Lamerton and Sydenham, one from Stowford to the north and another from Plymouth to the south, while five others originated from elsewhere in Devon (from Okehampton, Staverton, Chulmleigh and South Tawton). The only complete outsider was Langton, a Yorkshireman who normally resided at Bramber in Sussex.

After 1411, the men of Tavistock frequently turned to members of the legal profession for their parliamentary representation, and this tendency continued after 1422. Just three of the borough’s MPs in the reign of Henry VI (Dobbe, Frespond and Gambon) are known to have engaged in trade, and although the occupation of a number of their fellows (several of whom may simply have been minor landowners) has not come to light, no fewer than nine MPs, between them accounting for 16 (and possibly 17) of 35 seats, were men of law. This dominance was particularly pronounced during the King’s minority, when at least 13 (and possibly 14) of 22 seats were taken by lawyers. Allowing for the return of Fitz rather than Person in 1432, at least one Tavistock MP in each Parliament summoned between 1423 and 1437 was a lawyer, and in 1423, 1425, 1427 and 1435 both were so qualified. Indeed, it is possible that this trend continued into the 1440s – for in 1442 one, and in 1449 (Nov.) both MPs were lawyers – but the loss of the election returns for 1439 and 1445 makes it impossible to be sure. Several of these lawyers were of some note within their profession. At least three (Fitz, Fortescue and Wyse) are known to have trained at Lincoln’s Inn, of which both Fitz and Fortescue were governors. The most eminent legal practitioner among Tavistock’s parliamentary representatives was without doubt the later chief justice and constitutional theorist (Sir) John Fortescue, who would become titular chancellor of England to the exiled Queen Margaret in the 1460s.

When returned for Tavistock, however, these men were still in the early stages of their careers: while they conducted busy private practices, they were not yet regularly employed in local office by the Crown or the duchy of Cornwall. Indeed, of the MPs in this period only Secheville had been appointed to a royal commission prior to his return, while Denbold was serving as an officer of the sheriff of Devon at the time of his first two elections. Fortescue already held minor judicial office as one of the two under sheriffs of the city of London when he was last returned for Tavistock in 1425, but the vastly greater part of his distinguished career still lay ahead of him. When Wonston sat for Tavistock at the very end of his parliamentary career, he could also look back on several spells of service as one of the duchy of Cornwall’s foresters on Dartmoor under all three Lancastrian Kings, and he was at that time probably also serving as royal bailiff of the fees of the earldom of Devon during the minority of the heir, an office closely related to that of feodary of the same earldom, to which Thomas Wyse was appointed at the start of the Christmas recess of his first Parliament. Tremayne, like the majority of his fellows without any administrative experience when first elected for Tavistock, had gathered at least some such experience as a tax collector by the time of his second return for the town 20 years later.

Only a few of their fellows went on to achieve more in their later careers. Wyse and Milford held the escheatorship of Devon and Cornwall, and the former found employment under the duchy of Lancaster as its feodary and bailiff in Devon and Cornwall, while the latter became controller of customs at Exeter and Dartmouth. Like Tremayne, Fitz and Julkin served as tax collectors; and Milford, Wyse and Wolston were appointed to royal commissions.

Whatever political pretensions the later abbots of Tavistock themselves harboured (in 1514 Abbot Richard Banham successfully petitioned Henry VIII for a summons to the Lords in the right of his abbey), there is little to suggest that they took much of an interest in their town’s parliamentary elections. By contrast with the three preceding reigns which had seen the return of an abbot’s brother on three occasions, of serving portreeves on a further two, as well as of a range of the abbey’s officials and servants, under Henry VI it was more rare for the MPs to be directly connected with their feudal overlord, other than as tenants of the abbey’s property. Julkin acted as the abbot’s attorney at the assizes and Denbold served him in a similar function in King’s bench, but there is no concrete evidence to suggest that these ties played any part in recommending the men in question to the burgesses for election to the Commons.10 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 357; KB27/717, rot. 47. By contrast, several of Tavistock’s MPs in this period also possessed close ties to other lords or corporate bodies. Person may have had ties with the abbey of Dunkeswell, Denbold twice served as the earl of Devon’s portreeve at Okehampton, and Langton held office as the duke of Norfolk’s constable of Bramber castle for more than 30 years. While there is no solid evidence that either Courtenay or Mowbray (let alone the abbot of Dunkeswell) was able to influence the Tavistock elections, in the late 1440s and early 1450s both lords were active in seeking the return of their supporters to Parliament, and Denbold’s return in November 1449 at least may have owed something to his connexions with the earl of Devon who that year was placing his nominees in a number of south-western seats.

Author
Notes
  • 1. The Commons 1386-1421, i. 356-7.
  • 2. Tavistock Parish Recs. ed. Worth, 119; The Commons 1386-1421, iv. 933.
  • 3. SC8/251/12531; CPR, 1467-77, pp. 376-7; KB27/843, rot. 52.
  • 4. Trans. Devon Assoc. lxxix. 151.
  • 5. The Commons 1509-58, i. 74.
  • 6. C219/10/4; 11/1.
  • 7. C219/14/3.
  • 8. C219/15/1.
  • 9. The Commons 1386-1421, i. 357 does not take account of his return for Bath in 1433.
  • 10. The Commons 1386-1421, i. 357; KB27/717, rot. 47.