Downton

Although by the fifteenth century the Wiltshire borough of Downton could look back on a long history of parliamentary representation, it was hardly a township of demographic or economic importance. While its taxable population of more than 200 in 1377 made it a more substantial settlement than the neighbouring constituencies of Cricklade, Calne and Ludgershall, it was far smaller than Wilton or Devizes and positively dwarfed by the cathedral city of Salisbury, a short distance to the north. Nevertheless, the borough’s rural hinterland formed a prosperous sheep-farming area which prior to the Black Death had rendered more taxes than any other non-urban parish in Wiltshire.

The manor of Downton was among the earliest endowments of the bishopric of Winchester, and the synonymous borough was a planned early thirteenth-century foundation by Bishop de Roches. By the 1230s there were some 120 burgages, a number which appears to have increased little thereafter. It is probable that the actual number of enfranchised burgesses was rather lower than the number of taxable residents given by the poll-tax assessment of 1377, which covered the entire settlement. In spite of the weekly market established by the bishops of Winchester, the borough’s economic development was hampered by the proximity of Salisbury.1 VCH Wilts. xi. 41; The Commons 1386-1421, i. 698. In keeping with the inhabitants’ modest commercial activities there is no suggestion that they made attempts to secure any degree of political independence from their overlords. The borough was never incorporated by royal charter, and its burgesses did not apparently organize themselves in the form of a guild. Instead, Downton remained an integral part of the bishop of Winchester’s manorial estate at Downton and was one of several settlements administered by the episcopal bailiff, to whom the oversight of the borough’s parliamentary elections also pertained.

Downton had first elected burgesses to the Commons in 1295, and had thereafter been represented with some regularity until the end of the 1320s. Thereafter, no returns are found for some three decades, although at least in 1331 the townsmen had been invited to make an election, as the sheriff explicitly recorded that no response had been made. In 1361, 1362 and 1365 the borough once again sent representatives to the Commons, but the incomplete survival of the original returns makes it impossible to tell how often it was required to do so thereafter. From Richard II’s accession Downton was clearly recognized as a parliamentary borough and was normally instructed to elect MPs, but apparently failed to do so on every documented occasion apart from Henry V’s first Parliament. The circumstances of the borough’s renewed enfranchisement in the first years of Henry VI’s majority are equally obscure. The loss of the original returns for the Parliament of 1439 makes it impossible to be certain even of the date at which the burgesses were once more asked to make an election. In 1442 Downton was one of two constituencies to be represented afresh in the Commons, and while the incorporation and enfranchisement of the other constituency, Plymouth, resulted from a protracted period of lobbying by its inhabitants, in Downton’s case it is likely that its feudal lord, the King’s influential great-uncle Cardinal Beaufort, was directly instrumental in securing the electoral precept.

The names of Downton’s MPs are known for eight of the ten Parliaments summoned between 1442 and 1460; none have been discovered for those of 1445 and 1460. Fifteen men shared these 16 seats between them, all but one being returned for this borough only a single time during the period under review. The exception was Ralph Legh, who secured a second Downton seat more than ten years after his first election for the borough. In the reign of Edward IV, Legh and Danvers added further returns for Downton to those of Henry VI’s reign. This did not, however, mean that Downton was normally represented by parliamentary novices. In all but one of the Parliaments for which the MPs’ names are recorded at least one of the MPs had previously sat in the Commons (albeit usually for another constituency), and in 1453 (the occasion of Legh’s second election) both Downton Members were so qualified. Only once, in 1447, is it likely that Downton returned two men lacking parliamentary experience.

These statistics also to some extent obscure the fact that several of the men who at one point in their careers represented Downton were parliamentarians of some distinction. Although Bailey, Bergh, Brecknock and Sparowe each sat only a single time, Wyng was a Member of two Parliaments, Rokes, Tilney and Wolffe were each returned three times and Aysshton, Bridges and Danvers secured election on four occasions. Even more impressive was the record of Legh and Welles, both returned six times, and of Lawley, seven times an MP. Yet even they were out-performed by John Whittocksmead who sat in no fewer than 12 Parliaments between 1427 and 1472, and the loss of many election returns makes it likely that this figure represents an underestimate. In their majority, Downton’s MPs established these records of parliamentary service as borough Members. Aysshton went on to represent Truro and Taunton, Bridges found seats at Southwark and Great Bedwyn, Lawley at Bridgnorth and Wootton Bassett, Legh at East Grinstead and Taunton, Rokes at Hindon and Melcombe Regis, Danvers and Tilney at Hindon, Welles at Great Bedwyn, Wolffe at Taunton, Wyng at Chippenham and Whittocksmead at Bath, Devizes, Salisbury, Calne, Wilton and Cricklade. In common with Legh (MP for Surrey in 1459) and Welles (a knight for Hampshire in 1455), Whittocksmead also sat among the knights of the shire: he was returned for Wiltshire in 1450, before – curiously – re-joining the ranks of the parliamentary burgesses five years later.

No fewer than four of Downton’s MPs in the reign of Henry VI could point to existing family traditions of parliamentary service, and Rokes provided such a pedigree for his son John† who was to follow him into the Commons. Aysshton, Danvers and Whittocksmead all followed their fathers into Parliament, while Lawley had been preceded in the House by his uncle William*. Danvers was, moreover, part of a distinguished parliamentary dynasty, being joined in the Lower House by no fewer than three of his siblings; furthermore, his eldest half-brother, Robert*, and younger brother, William†, were both summoned to attend the Lords as judges of the common pleas.

No details of the conduct of the Downton elections have been discovered, but it is clear that the lord of the borough, the bishop of Winchester, exercised a controlling influence. The successive incumbents of the see of Winchester during the period under review, Henry Beaufort (d.1447) and William Waynflete, played central parts in Henry VI’s administration and used their patronage to secure the return to Parliament of their own retainers and members of the King’s household. Such men filled Downton’s seats. Welles was deputy steward of the bishop’s estates; Wolffe held office as parker of Marwell under both Beaufort and Waynflete; Bridges served as bailiff of Waynflete’s liberties in Oxfordshire and Berkshire, and at Burley in Hampshire; and Legh as bailiff of Waynflete’s lordships of Wargrave, West Wycombe and Ivinghoe. Later in life, Aysshton went on to become Waynflete’s constable of Taunton castle, and Danvers was appointed the bishop’s treasurer of Wolvesey and bailiff of the episcopal lordships at Adderbury and Harwell. Principal among the Household men returned for Downton was Brecknock who began his career as clerk of the controlment and rose to become treasurer of the Household and receiver-general of the duchy of Cornwall, retaining the latter post both under Henry VI and after Prince Edward’s birth in 1453. Similarly, Legh rose from the post of under clerk of the kitchen via the clerkship and the serjeantry of the catery to become marshal of the King’s hall, while Rokes served as receiver of Queen Katherine’s lordship of Wallingford and after the dowager queen’s death remained in post as receiver of the duchy of Lancaster estates formerly assigned to her in dower.

Other influences probably also came to play in the selection of Downton’s MPs. Thus, Bergh and Wyng, who were returned together in 1450, both possessed close ties with the Hungerfords, and in particular with Robert Hungerford, Lord Moleyns, then at the heart of the court circle. Similarly, Legh, Whittocksmead and Rokes (the former two returned together in 1442) were officials in the employ of another member of Henry VI’s inner circle of advisers in the 1440s, William Aiscough, bishop of Salisbury.

Connexions with an apparent impact on Downton’s parliamentary representation aside, a number of Downton MPs also maintained ties with other magnates and corporate bodies. Thus, Aysshton had been receiver of the lordship of Caliland for Humphrey Stafford, duke of Buckingham; Bridges was receiver-general of Henry VI’s foundation of King’s College in the university of Cambridge; Legh served as the duke of Norfolk’s steward at Weston by Baldock and was later appointed marshal of the Exchequer at Mowbray’s nomination; and after the murder of Bishop Aiscough, the able man of affairs John Whittocksmead transferred apparently effortlessly into the service of his successor Richard Beauchamp, as well as accepting feed stewardships from a number of religious houses, including the great abbeys of Glastonbury and Hyde near Winchester. Between them, Downton’s representatives thus brought to the Commons considerable administrative experience, and many of them had pursued extensive careers of office-holding under the Crown. Prior to their first return for Downton, Brecknock, Bridges, Legh, Rokes and Welles had all been appointed to royal ad hoc commissions of one kind or another, and Brecknock, Danvers, Rokes and Welles were or had been members of various county benches. Rokes and Wolffe were serving customs officials in south-western ports (the latter also holding the post of deputy butler at Bridgwater at the time), while Danvers had held similar appointments in London and Sandwich. Wolffe and Legh had served terms as escheators, respectively of Devon and Cornwall and of Cheshire and several Welsh lordships, while Brecknock was a past sheriff of Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire. Legh had in addition gathered experience of financial administration as remembrancer of the Irish exchequer and chirographer in the court of common pleas at Westminster. While a Member of the Coventry Parliament of 1459 Danvers was assigned to a diplomatic mission to Burgundy, a task which did not, however, preclude his inclusion in the commission of array issued on the day after the dissolution.

For most of the Downton MPs their elections for the borough came early in their official careers, but they went on to serve the Crown in a variety of official functions, their successful careers marking them out as men of outstanding qualities. Many of them owed their offices to their professional qualifications, for a high proportion of them had undergone some legal training. Both Welles and Danvers were members of the Inner Temple, and Aysshton, Bridges, Lawley, Legh, Tilney and Whittocksmead were evidently also men of law.

In the light of the apparently regular exercise of electoral patronage by Downton’s overlords, it is not surprising the find that the statutory requirement for MPs to be resident in their constituencies was largely ignored. Just three of the borough’s MPs under Henry VI hailed from Wiltshire, and of these only Bergh owned property in Downton itself, while Wyng came from Chippenham and Whittocksmead had lands at Beanacre by Melksham. Rokes and Welles came from the neighbouring counties of Berkshire and Hampshire, respectively, while the remainder were complete outsiders. Aysshton, whose family came from Cornwall, normally lived at Godstone in Surrey, while Legh (originally a Cheshireman) owned a house at Stockwell in the same county, and Bridges resided in Southwark. When not occupied about the King or on service abroad, Brecknock could enjoy his country mansion at Horsenden in Buckinghamshire, Danvers lived in Oxfordshire, Lawley at various times resided at Much Wenlock in Shropshire and Moreton and Tidmarsh in Berkshire, and Wolffe came from Kentisbury in Devon. The provenance of Bailey and Sparowe has not been established with any degree of certainty.