Leicestershire

Leicestershire was a county of below average size and wealth. At about 527,000 acres, it ranked 28th of the 39 ancient counties; among the assessments for the 1451 subsidy its total assessable wealth ranked it 19th of the 29 counties for which figures are available.1 S.J. Payling, ‘County Parlty. Elections’, Parlty. Hist. xviii. 258. Geographically, in common with other shires of the Midlands, it lacked physical barriers to separate it from its neighbours The principal division within the county was formed by the River Soar: to the west of the river was an area of generally poor agricultural land which included two large areas of woodland, Leicester and Charnwood Forests; to the east a more densely populated area of better agricultural land. Tenurially, the division in the county was not between west and east but between north and south. The principal landholder in the south was the Crown, in the form of the duchy of Lancaster honor of Leicester, which for most of the period under review was in the hands of Queen Katherine (d.1437), widow of Henry V, and then in those of Queen Margaret of Anjou. The main baronial landholdings lay in the northern half of the county. In the north-eastern corner, the Vale of Belvoir, were the extensive holdings of the Roos family; the lands of the Beaumonts lay principally in the north-west around the edge of Charnwood Forest; and the family of Ferrers, the only one of the baronial families who had their main residence in the county, lived at Groby, just to the north of Leicester. Although other baronial families had lands in Leicestershire, most notably the Mowbrays and the Beauchamps, their holdings there were peripheral to their main interests and they played little part in the county’s affairs. For this period the Roos family also played little part, although for different reasons. After the death of William, Lord Roos, in 1414, the family went into an extended period of decline, a product of short-lived lords and long-lived dowagers followed by political miscalculation, and, after the end of this period, by madness and failure of male issue.2 Payling, Political Society in Lancastrian Eng. 94-95; E. Acheson, Leics. in 15th Cent. 18-20. Thus, in the reign of Henry VI the leading members of the nobility in the county were William, Lord Ferrers of Groby (d.1445), his successor, Edward Grey (d.1457), the husband of his grand-daughter and heiress, and John, Lord (and, from 1440, Viscount) Beaumont. The latter was easily the most influential. Although his main residence was at Folkingham in south Lincolnshire, not only did he possess extensive landholdings in Leicestershire (notably the valuable manor of Loughborough), but his local power was enhanced by duchy office: he was steward of the honour of Leicester from 1437.3 Acheson, 20-22.

The pool from which the county’s MPs were drawn was fairly attenuated, but it was not as narrow as suggested by the subsidy returns of 1436. Only five men were assessed on annual incomes of £100 p.a. and over, and only a further nine on incomes between £40 and £99 p.a. This suggests that the county’s upper gentry numbered only about 14, but a wider analysis of the sources suggests that there were twice that number of families with incomes above the level of distraint, namely £40 p.a.4 Ibid. 39, 203-4; E179/192/59. A rough estimate can also be made of the electorate as defined by the statute of 1429, (that is, the number of 40s. freeholders), or at least some figures can be adduced suggestive of its size. Between 1407 and 1478 a total of 246 different men attested elections in the county; the subsidy returns of 1436 name 120 lay individuals, including widows, with annual clear incomes of £5 or more; and a modern analysis has suggested, taking the fifteenth century as a whole, that there were some 170 families in the county ‘of either gentry or potential gentry status’. Of these 170 families, just over half are represented in the surviving list of attestors. These figures are open to varying interpretations, but they suggest that the electorate may have been in excess of 300, perhaps significantly so.5 C219/13/1-16/5; E179/192/59; Acheson, 38-39, 204-12.

Administratively, the county was twinned, for the purposes of the offices of sheriff and escheator, with its neighbour Warwickshire, a county that was slightly larger and significantly wealthier.

The names of Leicestershire’s MPs are known for 21 of the 22 Parliaments which met during the reign of Henry VI, and indentures of return survive for 19.6 The MPs for the Parls. of 1439 and 1445 are known from tax comms.: CFR, xvii. 140, 324-5. Twenty-one different men sat for the county, between them representing it on 47 occasions. Such figures are fairly typical of other shires, but, in another respect, Leicestershire was unusual. As many as seven of its MPs are known to have sat for other constituencies (between them on 17 occasions), a significantly greater percentage than among both the county’s MPs of the preceding period (5 out of 31) and the MPs of most other shires. One reason for this anomaly was the overlap between its leading gentry and those of its small eastern neighbour, Rutland. Four of the MPs – Burgh, Boyville, Digby and Palmer – represented both. But it also marks the intrusion of outsiders into the county’s representation, for three of the seven – the two Stauntons and Sir Thomas Erdington – can be said to have had their main interests elsewhere at the time they sat for Leicestershire.

Of the 21 MPs, the four most frequently returned were drawn from the seven who sat for other constituencies: although Digby sat only once for Leicestershire, he represented Rutland on five occasions and Huntingdonshire twice; Palmer, elected on as many as six recorded occasions for Leicestershire, also sat once for Rutland; and Boyville represented the same two counties in the proportion five to two. Hotoft added to his four returns for Leicestershire two for Warwickshire and one for Warwick. The first three of these men had parliamentary careers of 30 years or more, with 37 years between Boyville’s first and last Parliaments. Yet, among the 21, brief careers in Parliament were more common: seven of them are recorded as sitting only once.7 Nine of the 21 men are recorded as representing Leics. only once, but two of these – Digby and Erdington – also sat for other constituencies.

None the less, single returns were not so common as to create a majority of parliamentary novices among the MPs. Twenty-six of the 42 seats were filled by men with previous experience of Parliament, and 24 of the 42 by those who had previously sat for Leicestershire. On only two occasions – in 1423 and 1437 – were novices returned together, and in 1445 a novice was returned in company with someone who had sat only for Warwickshire. This compares with six assemblies in which the county was represented by two of its former Members, and a further one to which was returned a former Leicestershire Member with a man (Robert Staunton), who had sat for Grimsby. The experienced Members were distributed fairly evenly through the period, although five of the six Parliaments to which two former Leicestershire MPs were elected fell between 1426 and 1439. The five cases of immediate re-election occurred within a similar period, all dating between 1426 and 1442. No individual was returned on three consecutive occasions, although Brokesby represented the county in five out of eight Parliaments between 1422 and 1432. These figures demonstrate a higher degree of representative continuity than had prevailed in the first two decades of the fifteenth century, but a lower one than in the second half of the fourteenth century.

Although seven of the MPs had interests outside Leicestershire significant enough to secure them election for other constituencies, the county’s representation was dominated by the leading gentry. Seven of the 21 MPs came from prominent families well-established in the county, namely Bellers, Berkeley, Boyville, Erdington (even though his main concerns lay in Warwickshire), Hastings, Moton, and, less clearly than the others, Digby. Another was yet better born: Henry Beaumont was Viscount Beaumont’s younger brother. A further eight can be said to have recently become established among the leading men of the shire, either coming into the county by inheritance or advancing themselves by successful careers: Astley, Bugge, Burgh and Fouleshurst number among the former category, and Brokesby, Feldyng, Hotoft and Palmer among the latter. Neel could be added to the latter category, but when he sat for the county early in his successful legal career he still numbered among its lesser gentry. Only Everingham came into the county as a result of his own marriage to a Leicestershire heiress. The two Stauntons are more difficult to categorize. Half-brothers, they were descended from a Leicestershire knightly family resident at Staunton Harold, but the family’s main estates had passed by marriage to the Shirleys on the failure of the senior male line in 1423. By then a junior branch was established at Sutton Bonington, just over the county border in Nottinghamshire, and it was this line to which the two MPs belonged. The most obscure of the MPs was Whatton, yet even he was the descendant of a family that had once been prominent in Leicestershire.

In these circumstances it is not surprising to find that as many as 12 of the MPs came from families that had provided Leicestershire MPs in an earlier generation or generations: an Erdington had sat for the county as early as 1309; the families of Bellers, Boyville, Moton and Staunton also provided the county with MPs in the first half of the fourteenth century; a Burgh, a Digby and a Hastings sat between 1365 and 1373; and Sir Laurence Berkeley, Baldwin Bugge and Richard Hotoft were the sons of earlier MPs. In addition, Brokesby was the younger brother of the county’s MP in the Parliament of January 1404.

All but two of the 21 MPs had traceable landholdings in Leicestershire when they represented the county in Parliament. The exceptions were Henry Beaumont and the lawyer Robert Staunton, both of whom appear to have owed their election to Viscount Beaumont.8 Staunton acquired lands in the county between his first election to represent it in 1450 and his second in 1467, largely as a result of his second marriage to the wid. of Thomas Walsh of Wanlip. Not surprisingly, in view of the part played by the MPs as a group in the affairs of other shires, most of them had lands elsewhere. Only Neel and Whatton had property confined to the county. No fewer than seven of the MPs had lands in Northamptonshire, either acquired before they sat in Parliament or later in their careers, and the same number are known to have had property in Warwickshire. Though most of these landholdings lay in shires neighbouring Leicestershire, some of the MPs had property much further afield: the Erdingtons had long held the manor of Corfe Mullen in Dorset; Fouleshurst inherited significant holdings in Cheshire; and Astley, Beaumont and Hastings all had lands in Yorkshire. These external interests help explain the wealth of several of the county’s MPs. The richest men to represent it were Hastings and Brokesby, the one the head of a gentry family of ancient wealth, the other a largely self-made man. Both had incomes in excess of £200 p.a., although Brokesby was significantly less wealthy when he began his parliamentary career in 1410 than when he ended it in 1432. A little behind them was Erdington, assessed at £170 p.a. in the Warwickshire returns of 1436. He was probably the richest of a group of MPs with incomes in excess of £100 which included Beaumont, Bellers, Berkeley, Boyville, Moton and Palmer (although, like Brokesby, he was significantly less wealthy when he began his parliamentary career). Others had incomes sufficient to ensure them a prominent place in local affairs: Bugge, Digby, Everingham, Feldyng, Fouleshurst and Thomas Staunton all fall into the category of landowners with incomes of between £40 and £100 p.a.

Below them, however, was a small group not qualified for election by wealth. Hotoft was assessed at a modest £24 in 1436 and Astley at £22. Both went on to become wealthier – Hotoft through a successful career and Astley through inheritance – but, when they sat together for the county in 1437, their incomes were relatively modest. Others were also of comparatively slender means. Although Neel ended his career with the wealth brought by the salary of a royal justice, he had but a small landed income when he sat in 1442; Burgh was assessed at only £26 in 1436 (after his parliamentary career was over); Whatton was probably poorer than both when he sat in 1459; and Robert Staunton appears to have had little more than annuities and legal fees when he sat in 1450. None the less, taken as whole, Leicestershire’s MPs were men of means, and it is clear that when a man of lesser wealth was returned either his qualifications lay in a legal training or else his election was determined, as in the case of Whatton in 1459, by exceptional political circumstances.

The domination of representation by a well-established elite is not reflected in the number of belted knights returned. This was a general phenomenon – one which only Yorkshire avoided – and was reflective of a marked decline in the number of knights rather than in the social standing of MPs, although the decline seems to have gone further in Leicestershire than in other comparable shires. Between 1386 and September 1397 knights had filled 19 out of 22 parliamentary seats for the county, but thereafter the proportion greatly declined. In the reign of Henry VI they took only five out of 42, and this includes Henry Beaumont, who was not a knight when elected but was dubbed at the coronation of Queen Margaret while sitting in Parliament. This compares, for example, with a figure of 16 out of 44 for neighbouring Nottinghamshire and 13 of 42 in Warwickshire (although, interestingly, only three of 42 in Northamptonshire). Plainly this decline was not because the later MPs did not have the wealth to support the rank. Indeed, most of them were distrained to take up knighthood: Astley, Bellers, Boyville, Brokesby, Digby, Feldyng, Hastings, Hotoft, Palmer and Thomas Staunton all paid fines on at least one occasion to ‘avoid’ doing so. Of these, only Hastings, who had a long military career, became a knight. The rest either saw no point in assuming the rank, or, much more probably, were denied the opportunity to do anything more than make fine as they lacked the necessary military or social qualifications. Significantly, of the three MPs who assumed knighthood after the end of their parliamentary careers, two did so on campaign: Everingham was knighted on the eve of the battle of Towton in 1461, and Feldyng at the battle of Tewkesbury ten years later, both dying on the field. The other knight was Neel, who took the rank towards the end of his judicial career at a time when judges were coming to be routinely knighted.

One reason for this decline in knighthood was the waning of English military fortunes and activity in France. Most of the older generation among the 21 MPs fought there: Boyville, Brokesby, Bugge, Hastings, Moton and probably also Berkeley and Everingham were present at the battle of Agincourt, and Digby served across the Channel at the end of Henry V’s reign. Only two of them, however, had what might be described as a military career: Moton, who as a young man had earned knighthood serving at sea under Richard, Lord Grey of Codnor, admiral of England, went on to fight under Grey both in the subjugation of the Glendower rebellion and in the second Norman campaign of 1417; and Hastings, who had begun life as a younger son, served periodically in France for a further 30 years after Agincourt.9 It is possible that Everingham is to be identified with the soldier who fought at the battle of Verneuil in 1424 and went on to serve, in the 1430s, as lt. of Alençon under Edmund Beaufort, count of Mortain, but the identification is very doubtful. Further, those among the MPs who were not old enough to have seen action during Henry V’s reign were not tempted by later campaigns. Palmer may have served briefly under the duke of Bedford in 1428; Beaumont took part in the 1435 expedition for the defence of Calais; and in 1443 Bellers and Digby participated in the ill-fated expedition of John Beaufort, duke of Somerset. This, however, was the full extent of their military experience abroad; it is not therefore surprising that only Berkeley and Hastings won knighthood for foreign military service.

Another reason for the comparative lack of military experience among the MPs is the prominence of lawyers among them, and it is here that one finds the most significant contrast between Leicestershire’s representation in the reign of Henry VI and in the period 1386-1421. In the earlier period, although five men of apparent legal training were returned, they filled only six of the county’s 54 known seats (and only two of the 36 from 1386 to 1407).10 In addition to the four lawyers named in The Commons 1386-1421, i. 471, I have included John Burgh, who was both j.p.q. and coroner. By contrast the six certain lawyers (Brokesby, Burgh, both of whom also sat in the earlier period, Hotoft, Neel, Palmer and Robert Staunton) together with another putative one (Feldyng, who was named to the quorum of the peace), occupied no fewer than 19 of the 42 seats between 1422 and 1460. Or to put it another way, the county was represented by two lawyers in the Parliaments of 1433, 1439, 1442 and 1449 (Nov.), and by one lawyer in a further 11 of the 17 remaining Parliaments. Here again a comparison with neighbouring shires is instructive: during Henry VI’s reign, lawyers filled 13 out of 42 seats in Warwickshire, 11 out of 44 in Nottinghamshire and only five out of 44 in Derbyshire, although as many as 23 of 42 in Northamptonshire.

In contrast to the Warwickshire MPs, as a group the Leicestershire MPs were not closely related. While in the period 1386 to 1421 as many as five families produced more than one MP for the county, only the Stauntons did so in Henry VI’s reign. Further, only to the Parliament of 1425 did the county elect two near kinsmen: Bugge was Brokesby’s nephew. Nor does there appear to have been a high degree of mutual dependence between the MPs as a group. Both points are strikingly illustrated by the marriages they made. The 21 MPs made 22 matches in which the bride can be identified by her paternal family. Of these only four were from Leicestershire, one of whom brought a Yorkshire man, Everingham, into the county. Five came from neighbouring Northamptonshire (counting twice Elizabeth Mulsho, who married Bugge and then Moton); a further six from the other neighbouring shires of Rutland, Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire and Warwickshire; and one from as far away as Sussex.

The relationship between the personnel of Leicestershire’s representation and the major offices of shire government also presents some unusual features. The county shared its shrievalty with Warwickshire, and this explains why only seven of the 21 MPs held the office (Warwickshire MPs were better represented with 11 out of 25 doing so). Yet it is still surprising to find that only six of the 42 seats were taken by men who had already held the office, and five of these six are accounted for by Brokesby. It is also striking that as many of six of the MPs held the shrievalty in other counties, none of whom also held it in Leicestershire.11 Boyville, Digby and Palmer served in Rutland; Astley in Staffs.; Thomas Staunton in the jt. shrievalty of Notts. and Derbys.; and Feldyng in that of Cambs. and Hunts.. Most of these held their offices only after they had represented Leicestershire in Parliament, although three of the seats were filled by former sheriffs of other counties. The 21 MPs were even more poorly represented among the escheators of Leicestershire and Warwickshire. Only five of them served in this office (compared with seven in respect of the Warwickshire MPs), but, since the office was junior to that of sheriff, former escheators filled as many as ten of the county seats, nine of these instances being accounted for by the lawyers Hotoft and Palmer. Again in contrast to the shrievalty, only two of the MPs held the office in other shires and both of these also served in Warwickshire and Leicestershire: Burgh and Palmer served in the joint escheatorship of Northamptonshire and Rutland.

In the case of the commission of the peace, there was no complication of office shared with another county. Eleven of the 21 MPs held the office in Leicestershire, and as many as 19 of the 42 seats were taken by serving j.p.s. in the county. Two serving j.p.s were elected to the assemblies of 1433, 1439, 1449 (Nov.) and 1455, and one was elected on 11 occasions. J.p.s were thus more prominent among the county’s MPs than they had been in the period 1386-1421 when only 16 of 54 seats were filled by men in receipt of the commission, but the change came in the early 1430s rather than 1422. Between the Parliaments of 1422 and 1432 only 5 of the 16 seats were taken by a j.p., all five by Brokesby, compared with 14 of 26 in the remainder of the period. The interests of the MPs in other counties are also reflected in their careers as j.p.s. Of the 11 appointed in Leicestershire, Palmer was a serving j.p. both there and in Rutland when elected to five Parliaments for the county during Henry VI’s reign, as was Burgh when elected in 1433.12 Palmer had formerly been a j.p. in Northants. In addition, Robert Staunton was on the Derbyshire bench when returned in 1450. Three other of the Leicestershire j.p.s. held the commission elsewhere (Hotoft in Warwickshire and Rutland, Neel in many counties as a royal justice, and Boyville in Rutland), but only after they had sat for this county.13 The same applies to three MPs who were j.p.s. in other shires but not Leics.: Astley (in Staffs.), Digby (in Hunts. and Rutland), and Erdington (in Warws.).

A notable feature of Leicestershire’s representation is the high proportion of its MPs who had strong baronial connexions. Not surprisingly it was the influence of Viscount Beaumont which was most strongly felt. Six of them were closely associated with him, namely Henry Beaumont, Everingham, Neel, the two Stauntons and Whatton. All of these stood outside the gentry elite of the county, at least at the time they sat for it in Parliament, and would not have been elected but for their place in his service. The same could be said for Henry Beaumont’s fellow MP in 1445, Erdington, who, although well qualified for election by wealth, was principally a Warwickshire man. Between 1442 and 1453 these men took as many as seven of the county’s 12 seats, with Whatton later securing election in 1459.14 Another of the MPs, Brokesby, stood as godfather to Lord Beaumont’s son in 1438 and numbered among his feoffees, but his parlty. career largely predated Beaumont’s rise to power in the county and, in any event, was a product of his own wealth and independent standing. Second in influence to Beaumont were the Lords Ferrers of Groby. Four MPs were linked to these lords: Fouleshurst was Lord William’s tenant and the feoffee of his second son, Thomas Ferrers;15 In 1431 Thomas Ferrers attested Fouleshurst’s election, the only occasion on which he is found among the attestors: C219/14/2. Astley was a kinsman of Edward Grey, Lord Ferrers; the lawyer Hotoft was Edward’s annuitant; and Feldyng was his feoffee.

Other baronial influence was exercised much more sporadically. Boyville began an intense parliamentary career (he sat in four of the six Parliaments which met between 1423 and 1429, on the first three occasions for Leicestershire), at about the same time as he entered the service of Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick. The two events may be connected, although the Beauchamp earl generally had little interest in the county’s affairs. Less speculatively, a clear role can be assigned to the influence of John Mowbray, duke of Norfolk, in Digby’s election in 1429, his first return to Parliament in a long parliamentary career and his only election for Leicestershire. A dispute between Mowbray, whose service Digby had entered, and John Holand, earl of Huntingdon, made both men anxious to secure the return of their own men. Their rivalry led to the Huntingdonshire election of 20 Aug. being aborted, and it may be that the Leicestershire hustings, held two days before, were also subject to dispute. The indenture names as many as 70 attestors, comfortably the most for any fifteenth-century election in the county. If rivalry there was, it was Mowbray’s candidates who prevailed, for Digby was elected in company with Brokesby, who also had links with the duke.16 C219/14/1. If the duke did influence this election, it is a rare example of him doing so, whether in Leics. or elsewhere: R.E. Archer, ‘Parlty. Restoration’, in Rulers and Ruled ed. Archer and Walker, 113.

The exercise of baronial influence seems to have filled the vacuum left by the declining influence of the duchy of Lancaster, at least as far as that influence was manifest in the hustings. Before the duchy became subsumed in the Crown in the revolution of 1399, its retainers had taken a central role in the county’s representation: in Richard II’s reign they had filled 21 of 48 parliamentary seats, and, in striking contrast, royal retainers took no seats until the royalist assembly of 1397-8. This intimate connexion had persisted into the next reign when the duke of Lancaster was King. Seven of Leicestershire’s 12 representatives during Henry IV’s reign were royal retainers, between them occupying ten of the 18 known seats. Thereafter, however, a very different pattern emerges. Under Henry V none of the county’s MPs were members of the Household, and only two were duchy of Lancaster officials.17 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 472-3.

The main explanation for this sudden change probably lies in the involvement of many royal retainers in the wars in France, but as the appeal of war slackened the relationship between the Crown and the county’s MPs did not regain its earlier intimacy. Of the 21 MPs elected during Henry VI’s reign, at most six had places in the royal household at the time they were elected. Most notable among them was Thomas Staunton: when he sat in his only Parliament in 1447 he was an usher of the King’s chamber. In addition, Astley, Everingham and probably also Bugge and Whatton were household esquires as MPs, and Bellers became one before his third election. Two were duchy officials during their parliamentary careers: Hotoft was bailiff of the honour of Leicester when returned for the county twice in the 1440s; and Robert Staunton was duchy clerk in the town of Leicester and a duchy bailiff in Derbyshire when elected in 1450. Plainly royal and duchy retainers had a part in the county’s representation, but it was a lesser part than might have been expected in view of the historic influence of the duchy there.

One explanation for this lies in Viscount Beaumont’s appointment as steward of the honour from 1437 as a result of which, for much of the period under review here, the duchy’s influence was mediated through him. Thomas Staunton, Everingham and Whatton all served both him and the Crown. This shift from the direct exercise of duchy (and hence, from 1399) royal influence to its mediation through the leading local lord is reflected in a map of MPs’ residences. Those who sat for Leicestershire between 1386 and 1421 came predominantly from the middle third of the county (divided from west to east), where duchy property was concentrated; the north-west of the county went unrepresented. The pattern was different after 1422. Although residences of the MPs for Henry VI’s reign were widely distributed, there was a bias in favour of the county’s north-western quarter, where the bulk of the property of Beaumont and Ferrers lay.18 For maps of duchy property and baronial manors, see Acheson, 16, 19.

The waning of the duchy’s power in the county, at least as exercised directly, is also reflected in the civil war of 1459-61. Given the duchy’s holdings there and Viscount Beaumont’s support for Henry VI, one might expect the county’s gentry to favour the Lancastrian cause. In fact, loyalties, at least as reflected among the 13 of the 21 MPs who lived during the civil war, were divided. Of these 13 four committed themselves wholly. Three fought for Lancaster: Digby and Everingham were killed at the battle of Towton and subsequently attainted; while Feldyng was omitted from Edward IV’s general pardon of March 1461 and although he seemingly reconciled himself to the Yorkist government he fought and died for Lancaster at the battle of Tewkesbury. The other, Digby’s friend, Palmer, was an active supporter of York who made significant gains from the change of regime in 1461. Of the other nine, four (Bellers, the two Stauntons, and the obscure Whatton) were Lancastrian in sympathy (although Robert Staunton quickly returned to prominence under Edward IV through his service to William, Lord Hastings); two, Astley and Hotoft, were of uncertain sympathies; but Erdington, Neel and Boyville seem to have favoured York.

These divided loyalties had their impact at the hustings. The operation of overt political factors there is readily identifiable in the 1450s, as national politics became progressively more polarized. To the Parliament of 1455, which met in the aftermath of the victory of Richard, duke of York, at the first battle of St. Albans, two of his supporters, Hastings and Palmer, were returned. Both men had resources sufficient to justify their election, but that was not the case with one of the MPs returned in the wake of the Lancastrian victory at Ludford Bridge in October 1459. This election was presided over by Henry Filongley*, a senior Household man, as sheriff. One of those elected was a committed Lancastrian, Feldyng, but of sufficient wealth to secure election in less highly-charged circumstances; the other, Whatton, was too poor to have any such hopes. More than a hint of irregularity attached to the election. The leading gentry were conspicuous by their absence, and so humble were the 12 men named as attestors to the electoral indenture that Filongley felt obliged to depart from the customary form of the returns by adding that they did have the annual freehold income of 40s. p.a. demanded by statute.19 C219/16/5.

The election of 1450, held in the atmosphere of uncertainty and suspicion attendant upon the duke of York’s sudden return from Ireland, also presents unusual features. The Leicestershire hustings were not held until 12 Nov., six days after Parliament had assembled, even though the writs of summons, issued on 5 Sept., had given plenty of notice.20 The Warws. election, convened by the same sheriff, had been held on 19 Oct. The Leics. election should have been held on 15 Oct. The delay implies that it was deliberately held over. The return of Palmer provides a possible reason. He had already represented the county four times and was closely connected with the duke, who was energetically campaigning to secure the return of his own men. Significantly, however, he won election for Rutland, where he had few interests, on 29 Oct., and it may be that the election in Leicestershire was postponed until this result should be known. It is thus a fair surmise that Palmer was a candidate in his home county, and that, to avoid a politically divisive contest, he agreed to withdraw if he could secure a seat in Rutland. Unusually, in the return made by the Leicestershire sheriff four mainpernors were named for each MP: Palmer and his friend Digby acted for John Bellers. The other MP was Robert Staunton, a follower of Viscount Beaumont. Perhaps Palmer and his friend Bellers had intended to stand as a ‘joint ticket’, but could not be returned because of the candidature of Staunton, who may have represented those who were hostile to the pretensions of the duke of York.

The return in 1447 of Staunton’s half-brother, Thomas, another less than obvious candidate for the county, may also have been determined by considerations of national politics. It is surely more than coincidence that, as the regime of the duke of Suffolk prepared to attack the duke of Gloucester, Thomas, as a prominent Household servant, should have been elected at hustings conducted by another Household man, Thomas Everingham.

Other elections were determined by purely private interests. Such an interest is clearly identifiable in the hustings of 1445. In the previous year Erdington had sold to Viscount Beaumont the reversion of the valuable manor of Barrow-upon-Soar, title to which had long been contested by the Shirleys. Sir Ralph Shirley† was actively pursuing his claim at the time of the sale, and it is a reasonable assumption that Henry Beaumont and Erdington – both sitting for the county for the first and only time – were elected as a defence against any petition Shirley might present to the Commons. Two other examples can be cited. During Brokesby’s sixth and last Parliament in 1432 Joan, Lady Abergavenny, in whose service he had long been prominent, petitioned the Crown to point out errors in the record that had led her to forfeit a large sum on recognizance; Brokesby’s presence in the Commons is hardly likely to have been fortuitous. More interestingly, it may have been Feldyng’s interests as a merchant of the Calais staple that prompted him to seek election to the Parliament of November 1449, for it came at a time when arrangements were being made for the Crown’s repayment of substantial loans advanced by the staplers.

Indentures survive for 19 of the 21 elections held in the county between 1422 and 1460, but, aside from those of 1429 and 1459, they give little clue to the dynamics of election.21 The 1433 indenture is printed in Trans. Leics. Arch. Soc. lxx. 148. Although as many as 70 attestors are named in the 1429 indenture, the average number of attestors was very much less, at only about 16, and one indenture, that of 6 Feb. 1449, names none. Former and future MPs were more prominent among the attestors than they were in most other shires. Fifteen of the 21 MPs are recorded as attestors in the county on one or more occasions, appearing between them on 59 occasions. Several of them regularly attested: seven appear on four or more occasions, with Sir Robert Moton attesting as many as 13 elections.22 The six who are not recorded among the county’s attestors were Astley, Digby, Thomas Staunton (all of whom had their main interests elsewhere for most of their careers), Beaumont, who died young, Whatton and Hotoft, who is the most curious omission. At least four of the MPs are known to have attested elections in other counties: early in his career Palmer attended an election in Northamptonshire, where his main interests then lay; and, although neither Astley or Digby are known to have attended the hustings at Leicester, the former attested in Staffordshire in 1450 and the latter on three occasions in Huntingdonshire between 1425 and 1447. More remarkable was Burgh’s career as an attestor. From 1413 to 1432 he attested six elections each in Leicestershire and Rutland, and in 1427 and 1429 he attested in both counties. There can be little doubt that he attested in Rutland as the county coroner. This official routinely attended the county court, and it is not surprising that, in Leicestershire as in other shires, those who appeared most frequently among the attestors generally held that office (although they are rarely named as such in the indentures themselves).23 The long-serving coroner John Danet attested as many as 13 elections.

It is also worth noting that, for a short period, the escheator, when he was a Leicestershire rather than a Warwickshire man, regularly attended. The return of 20 Nov. 1421 is interesting in this respect as it identifies the two county coroners and the escheator, Burgh, by their offices.24 C219/12/6 (this return has been misfiled, appearing after the Glos. indenture). This is unique among the county’s surviving indentures, but the serving escheator witnessed five elections between 1420 and 1433, including Burgh in 1420 and Bugge in 1429. The practice was thereafter abandoned. No serving escheator is named in any other of the county’s fifteenth-century indentures.

There are a few instances of close connexions between individual attestors and those whose elections they witnessed. The only election attested by Alan Moton was that of his father, Sir Robert, in 1422; Baldwin Bugge was present at the election of his maternal uncle, Bartholomew Brokesby, on three occasions from 1422 to 1429; and in 1427 and 1435 Hugh Boyville was present at the election of his elder brother, John. These instances, however, are hardly any more than might be expected from a random distribution of electors and elected.

The representation of Leicestershire gives little indication of a strong notion of community among the county’s gentry. Its MPs were a disparate group, several of whom had important interests outside the shire and some, like Digby and Thomas Staunton, were only fitfully involved in its affairs. In the comparatively high number of its MPs who sat for other constituencies (partly because of the overlap between its representation with that of its small neighbour, Rutland), the few seats taken by knights and the high proportion filled by lawyers, its representation has close parallels with that of Northamptonshire. There was a marked decline in this period in the direct influence exerted by the Crown, through the duchy of Lancaster, over the county’s representation, and that decline was even more marked in the representation of the county’s only borough, Leicester.