Wiltshire

Landlocked in central southern England and surrounded by six other shires, Wiltshire stood eighth among the English counties in terms of wealth, as reflected in the returns for the subsidy of 1450-1.2 S.J. Payling, ‘County Parlty. Elections’, Parlty. Hist. xviii 258. Its neighbours Somerset and Hampshire were wealthier. Its prosperity rested on the production of wool, for the chalk down-lands which traverse this region fed great flocks of 1,000 sheep or more. Wiltshire made a vital contribution to the country’s supply of wool,3 VCH Wilts. iv. 1-2, 21-29. which, in the fourteenth century, in turn prompted a marked advance in the cloth industry. Its largest urban settlement, Salisbury, became by far its greatest centre for both the manufacture and marketing of cloth, and emerged in the later Middle Ages as one of the leading industrial and commercial cities of the realm. In 1334 Salisbury stood ninth among the wealthiest provincial towns, yielding in tax to the Exchequer nearly as much as all the other ‘boroughs’ of Wiltshire put together. Even so, the development of the cloth industry in the west of the county, notably at Castle Combe, under the lordship of Sir John Fastolf, and the district of Bradford-on-Avon, including Devizes and Westbury, meant that by the end of the fifteenth century production there rivalled that of Salisbury and the older centres. During that period, too, the industry became increasingly dependent on overseas markets (through the ports of Bristol and London, and to a lesser extent through Southampton).4 Ibid. 2; J. Hare, ‘Production, Specialisation and Consumption’, in The Fifteenth Cent. XIV ed. Clark, 190-8.

Major landowners of Wiltshire included the Benedictine monastery of Malmesbury (whose abbots received summonses to Parliament) and the nunnery at Wilton, and the sees of Salisbury and Winchester. Estates pertaining to the Crown were regularly assigned to the queen in dower, so that Henry IV’s consort, Joan of Navarre, held land in the county valued at £158 p.a. in the subsidy assessments of 1412, and Margaret of Anjou’s revenues from Wiltshire provided her with annual revenues ranging from £122 to £178.5 Feudal Aids, vi. 529-42; SC6/1055/16-19. The property held by Henry VI’s queen included, from 1447, the castle, town and lordship of Marlborough which, along with the forest of Savernack, had been granted to the King’s uncle Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, for term of his life.6 CPR, 1413-16, p. 338; 1429-36, p. 503; 1446-52, p. 559. Similarly, the park at Clarendon and the forests of Grovely, Melchet and Buckholt all reverted to the King on Duke Humphrey’s death. None of Wiltshire’s castles (at Devizes, Ludgershall, Marlborough and Old Sarum), were used as royal residences in the period here under review, although Henry VI briefly visited that at Marlborough in the summers of 1438 and 1447, and he journeyed through the county on other occasions.7 B.P. Wolffe, Hen. VI, 362-9. Important lay landowners among the higher nobility, such as the duke of York (who inherited estates in Wiltshire worth more than £230 p.a.) and the earls of Salisbury, were rarely resident in the county, and it is worthy of remark that the members of the lesser nobility who did have homes there were all newcomers to the parliamentary peerage in Henry VI’s reign.

Most important in the latter group were the Hungerfords, resident at Heytesbury as well as at their castle at Farleigh Hungerford in Somerset. Sir Walter Hungerford†, created Lord Hungerford in 1426, accumulated estates worth some £1,800 by the time of his death; and his grandson, Robert Hungerford, Lord Moleyns, acquired by marriage land assessed at £200 in 1451. Sir William Beauchamp, returned to the Commons in 1447, was summoned to the Upper House from 1449 as Lord St. Amand, in right of his wife, while his brother, Richard Beauchamp, as bishop of Salisbury, joined him there the following year. The Wiltshire family of Stourton provided another baron in the person of John Stourton II, created Lord Stourton in 1449, by which date his estates were worth well over £600 a year.8 The Commons 1386-1421, iii. 448; iv. 493. The Lords Hungerford and Stourton were particularly well placed to influence political affairs in Wiltshire, while prominent in the second strata of county society, the Sturmys and their descendants the Seymours belonged to a small elite of great gentry families which were elevated to the Lords in the sixteenth century.

Although Wiltshire appears to have been relatively immune to the feuds between members of the nobility which escalated into civil war in the 1450s, it did not escape the violent upheavals of the period. At the height of Cade’s rebellion, William Aiscough, bishop of Salisbury, was murdered by a mob at Edington on 29 June 1450. As one of the duke of Suffolk’s closest associates at the centre of government, in the aftermath of Suffolk’s fall Aiscough was held by many to be a traitor. Theft may also have motivated his killers: they plundered his baggage and removed articles allegedly valued at £1,000 as well as £3,000 in cash. On the same day there was a rising in Salisbury directed against the church authorities, in an escalation of the ill-feeling which long endured between the citizens and their episcopal overlord. Other riots flared up elsewhere in the county, and serious unrest continued through to the autumn. Yet Wiltshire was less directly affected by the major uprisings of 1451-2, led by the duke of York and earl of Devon, for their armies skirted the county on their march to Dartford, as did the itinerary chosen by the King and justices after their submission.9 KB9/133, 134; R.L. Storey, End of House of Lancaster, 66-67, 96-97.

The names are known of all the MPs for Wiltshire in Henry VI’s reign, save those who represented the county in the last Parliament summoned before his deposition. The 42 recorded seats were filled by 26 individuals. Although more than half of them (15) only ever represented this constituency once in the course of their careers, a few became well-established parliamentarians. Robert Long represented Wiltshire five times and Sir William Sturmy eight, and if their service for other constituencies is added to their totals they marked up eight and 12 appearances in the Commons respectively. Long’s overall record was exceeded by John Fortescue, who sat in the Commons in nine Parliaments (albeit only one of them for Wiltshire), and Sturmy’s was equalled by John Whittocksmead, who, although he too only sat once for Wiltshire, in the course of a long parliamentary career represented eight different constituencies. The commitment of the last two was impressive by any standard: Sturmy’s service, spread over 38 years and covering four reigns (from 1384 to 1422) included election as Speaker in 1404 (while representing Devon); and 48 years elapsed between the assembly of Whittocksmead’s first Parliament (for Bath) in 1427 and the dissolution of his 12th (for Cricklade) in 1475.

Nor were Fortescue, Long, Sturmy and Whittocksmead out of the ordinary in also securing election for other constituencies: altogether 15 of the 26 shire knights did so, six of them sitting for other shires,10 Paulet for Som., Shotesbrooke for Berks., Stourton for Dorset, Sturmy for Hants and Devon; Green for Northants. and Winslow for Worcs. seven for Wiltshire boroughs,11 Andrew, Henry and Robert Long, Russell, the two John Seymours and Whittocksmead. and three for boroughs in different counties.12 Dewall for Hereford, Fortescue for boroughs in Devon and Som., Whittocksmead for Bath in Som. In this respect the pattern of representation of Wiltshire followed along lines set in the period 1386-1421: then, ten of the shire knights had previously been returned for other constituencies before they first represented this county, while in Henry VI’s reign nine gained their earliest experience of the Commons by sitting for other places. Just eight of Wiltshire’s representatives in the period here under review were apparently only returned to the Commons a single time; overall, the average number of Parliaments per Member came close to four. Thus, the electors in Wiltshire continued to show a preference for men with knowledge of the workings of Parliament, who, as these statistics surely demonstrate, were keen to take a seat in the House again: in the period under review Wiltshire was represented by two such experienced men in 12 out of 21 Parliaments.

Nevertheless, there were changes in the pattern of representation as the century progressed. While between 1386 and 1421 it had seemingly only happened once (in 1420) that two novices were elected together (although gaps in the returns must qualify this statement), on probably three occasions in Henry VI’s reign (at the elections to the Parliaments of 1427, 1442 and 1447) this was the case. It may be significant, too, that seven of the eight novices returned to these particular Parliaments were never elected again for Wiltshire; and the fact that two of them (Paulet and Green) did sit in the Commons later, albeit for other shires, may indicate that in this county they faced increasing competition for seats. It is not possible, however, to determine from the electoral records whether or not any of these four elections were contested.

For the most part the choice of shire knights (in the case of 21 of the 26) fell on men whose principal residence was in Wiltshire and who had established personal links with other members of the county gentry. Many could look to a strong tradition of service in Parliament within their families. Ten were the grandsons and ten the sons or stepsons of former MPs. Indeed, the fathers of John Stourton, Sir Edmund Hungerford and Sir William Beauchamp had all been singled out by their fellows in the Commons of Henry V’s reign to preside over them as Speaker and convey their views to the King. Others emulated their fathers-in-law or uncles. Among our group certain relationships are of particular note. Sir Edmund Hungerford, both grandson and son of former Speakers, was the great-uncle of Thomas Hungerford; Robert and Henry Long were father and son; and John Seymour I – the grandson of another Speaker (Sturmy) – was the father of the namesake who was returned twice in the 1450s. Just over a third (nine) of the 26 went on to father MPs themselves. All this implies a closely-knit community, with a shared interest in parliamentary affairs, or at least an awareness of the importance of engaging in national concerns, which passed down the generations.

At least 16 of the shire knights came from old established gentry families of Wiltshire, and the county formed the focus of the landed interests and administrative commitments of the majority. Yet by no means all the MPs were natives of the shire. William Darell and John Dewall, the one a Yorkshireman, the other probably of Welsh origin, migrated to Wiltshire after marrying local heiresses; although heir to lands in this county, Henry Green was born in Middlesex to a Northamptonshire family; Richard Milborne most likely came from Dorset; and Sir Robert Shotesbrooke and Whittocksmead hailed respectively from Berkshire and Somerset. Three of those elected in Henry VI’s reign (John Paulet, John St. Loe and Richard Warre) usually lived in Somerset; and Fortescue, a Devonshire man with no significant landed interests in this county, should also be classed as an outsider. Several of the MPs added to their inheritances land acquired through marriage, and in this respect the most advantageous match was that contracted by Beauchamp with the heiress of St. Amand and Braybrooke. By contrast, St. Loe owed his property in Wiltshire to the King’s favour, while others (self-made men such as Robert Andrew, Robert Long and Whittocksmead) acquired the bulk of their landed holdings by purchase. It was by no means unusual for the shire knights to possess manorial estates in other counties (and not exclusively in the adjacent ones): at least 16 did so.

Full and accurate details about the annual incomes of these men of wealth and standing are rarely available. Nevertheless, a rough picture emerges from the subsidy returns of 1412 and 1450-1,13 Feudal Aids, vi. 529-42; E179/196/118. as well as from the less satisfactory information provided by inquisitions post mortem. These records enable us to say with confidence that 12 of the 26 MPs enjoyed sizable incomes of over £100 p.a., mainly derived from the substantial estates they had inherited or acquired by marriage.14 Baynton, Beauchamp, Cheyne, Dewall, Green, Sir Edmund Hungerford, Henry Long, St. Loe, John Seymour I, Shotesbrooke, Stourton and Sturmy. This group included Edmund Cheyne (with £103 or more), Dewall and Henry Long (both said to receive at least £120 a year), John Baynton (over £125), Sturmy (over £168), the latter’s grandson and coheir John Seymour I (£180), and Green (more than £200), but the richest among them were Beauchamp, whose inheritance, marriage and royal annuities provided him with an annual income in excess of £400, and Stourton, whose revenues increased from £200 or more at the time of his first election in 1421 to over £600 in the 1430s. Less wealthy, but still commanding incomes well in excess of £60 p.a. were Darell, John Lye, Milborne and Paulet. It may well be the case that there was not such a clear distinction between the different groups in terms of wealth as the extant records suggest, but on occasion the county electorate does appear to have returned men of comparatively modest means, below £50 p.a. Among these were Andrew, Fortescue, Robert Long, John Russell, John Seymour II (whose father still lived), Whittocksmead and Thomas Winslow. There is no discernible pattern of representation related to wealth, and although two of the most substantial among the 26 were returned in 1435 and to the consecutive Parliaments of 1445, 1447 and 1449 (Feb.), it is difficult to read any significance into this. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that when they were elected to the Parliaments of 1449 (Nov.) and 1459, respectively, neither Richard Warre nor Thomas Hungerford had inherited any of their families’ lands: both were young and inexperienced, and stand out as unusual choices for the electorate to make. They owed their elections to political circumstances.

With respect to their social standing, two of our MPs (Sir Edmund Hungerford and his great-nephew Thomas) were the sons of members of the peerage, but neither ever entered the Upper House themselves, even though Thomas, as the son and heir of Robert, Lord Hungerford and Moleyns, would have been entitled to do so in the 1460s had it not been for his father’s attainder for treason. Three of the 26 were later summoned to the Lords on their own merits: as chief justice of the King’s bench, Fortescue received a personal summons to the ten Parliaments from 1442 to 1460, and, as already noted, Stourton and Beauchamp, respectively as newly created Baron Stourton and Lord St. Amand, took their seats in the upper chamber from 1449. The rest of the shire knights were nearly all of armigerous rank, and although ten of them were fined for declining to take up knighthood, 11 did become knights (although not necessarily before their earliest elections to Parliament).15 Baynton, Beauchamp, Cheyne, Fortescue, Sir Edmund and Thomas Hungerford, Paulet, John Seymour I, Shotesbrooke, Stourton and Sturmy. Cheyne was knighted while attending the Parl. of 1429, probably on the eve of the coronation.

As might be expected, in several cases knighthood followed in the course of military service to the Crown. At least 18 of the Wiltshire seats in Henry VI’s reign were taken by men with experience of warfare overseas. Sturmy had crossed to Ireland with Richard II; St. Loe, who probably fought at Agincourt, had afterwards continued to serve Henry V in Normandy; while Shotesbrooke, definitely a veteran of that great battle, was knighted by the victor at Caen, and later nominated four times to the Order of the Garter (albeit without success). By contrast, Sir Edmund Hungerford was knighted in a ceremony at Leicester in 1426 at the side of the young Henry VI,16 Hungerford’s three nominations to the Order of the Garter probably failed because he lacked a record of outstanding military service. Beauchamp and Cheyne likewise on the eve of Henry’s coronation at Westminster in 1429, and Stourton while a member of the army which accompanied the King to France in 1430 for his crowning there. John Seymour I, who had seen active service in 1424 in the retinue of Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, was perhaps dubbed by the duke while again under his command on the expedition sent to relieve Calais in 1436; Paulet and Baynton crossed over to France in 1432 with Lord Hungerford; and Russell served there under the lieutenancy of the duke of York. Even so, barely a quarter of the recorded Wiltshire seats (just ten out of 42) were occupied by belted knights, and only in the Parliament of 1445 were both of the MPs men of this rank. Furthermore, all nine of those elected to the five Parliaments from November 1449 to 1459 were of lesser status. Over the period as a whole esquires and lawyers outnumbered knights in a ratio of three to one.

This stands in contrast to what had happened in previous reigns. In the three decades before 1422, Wiltshire’s electorate had preferred to be represented by men of war rather than men of law. Between 1394 and December 1421, just six lawyers had been elected, and they had taken no more than eight of the 44 recorded seats. Only in 1415 (when many of the country’s fighting men were in Normandy) had two members of the legal profession been elected together.17 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 682-7. Between 1422 and 1459, however, there was not only an increase in the number of lawyers elected but also in their share of the available seats. Eight of the 26 MPs would appear to have received some training in the law. In this regard Andrew, an efficient estate manager and steward, and Dewall, Henry and Robert Long, Lye, Whittocksmead (noticeably busy in the central courts) and Winslow, all of them placed on the quorum of commissions of the peace and of gaol delivery, were clearly over-shadowed by Fortescue, a former governor of Lincoln’s Inn and learned counsel for the duchy of Lancaster, who rose to be chief justice and famed writer of tracts on the constitution. By contrast with the earlier period, in Henry VI’s reign lawyers took as many as 14 of the 42 recorded seats – a third of the total – and in 1433 both MPs were members of this profession. Furthermore, it should be pointed out that while this pool of legal expertise related to the common law two other MPs commended themselves with qualifications earned on the national stage. Sturmy, the veteran of 11 Parliaments when he was elected to the first one of Henry VI’s reign, could offer knowledge of civil law accumulated over several years as a diplomat and royal envoy sent to negotiate with rulers on the continent, and Shotesbrooke’s skills in diplomacy similarly won him considerable respect in the years following his election for Wiltshire in 1426.

As might be expected, the majority of the shire knights (23 out of 26) participated in administration of the county, the three exceptions being Cheyne, who died prematurely (aged 28), shortly after the dissolution of his only Parliament in 1430, Warre, whose later employment focused on Somerset and Dorset, and Thomas Hungerford, whose only appointment was as sheriff in Gloucestershire. Altogether 17 were appointed as sheriffs in the course of their careers, all but three of them in Wiltshire;18 Andrew and Darell in Oxon. and Berks., Andrew, Sir Edmund and Thomas Hungerford and Stourton in Glos., Beauchamp in Devon, Darell in Kent, Green in Northants., Paulet, St. Loe, Seymour I, Stourton and Warre in Som. and Dorset, and Seymour I in Hants and Herefs. In addition, Whittocksmead had been under sheriff of Wilts. and although only seven had served in the office before their earliest election for this county, their experience may well have counted for something at later elections, for overall 19 out of the 42 recorded seats were filled by former sheriffs. Outstanding in this regard were John Seymour I (appointed sheriff for a remarkable seven terms and in four different bailiwicks), and Darell, sheriff of Wiltshire for six terms in all, of which three of those in Wiltshire extended over consecutive years, from 1420 to 1423 – a length of service in the same bailiwick which contravened the statute passed in 1377.19 Statutes, 1 Ric. II, c. 11. Other irregularities may be noted: Robert Andrew was returned for Wiltshire in 1433 while he was deputy sheriff in Worcestershire (that is, acting sheriff by appointment of Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, who held the hereditary shrievalty of that county in fee), and, more seriously and in direct contravention of electoral law, Thomas Hungerford was serving as sheriff in the neighbouring county of Gloucestershire when he entered the Commons at Coventry in 1459. Seven shire knights held the lesser office of escheator (four of them in the bailiwick Wiltshire shared with Hampshire),20 Andrew, Dewall, Robert Long and Whittocksmead in Hants and Wilts., Darell in Kent and Mdx., Milborne in Som. and Dorset and Winslow in Glos. and the current escheator was elected in 1429 (Long) and November 1449 (Dewall). As many as 19 of the 26 were appointed j.p.s (all but two of them in Wiltshire), and members of the county bench were returned to 12 Parliaments, although only in 1422 and 1433 were both MPs currently on that panel. In addition to these offices of local administration, a few of the shire knights took responsibility for the governance of the royal forests which covered large tracts of the county: Sturmy was succeeded by his grandson John Seymour I as hereditary warden of Savernake forest; while Milborne was a verderer in the forests of Clarendon and Groveley.

Experience in local government may have been seen as a desirable qualification for election to Parliament, for 18 of the 26 had been appointed to royal commissions or office before their earliest returns for the county. Yet four of the MPs (Henry Long, Lye, Russell and John Seymour II) received their earliest appointments to ad hoc commissions only when actually attending Parliament for the first time, and it was during his single Parliament in 1435 that Sir Edmund Hungerford was appointed sheriff. Maturity in terms of age may have been a significant factor too, although the evidence for this is not clear-cut. Sturmy, sitting in his last Parliament in 1422, was about 66; both of the MPs of 1433 and 1450 were in their fifties, and Andrew (1426), Milborne (1439) and St. Loe (1447) were all similarly advanced in years. Yet when Sturmy had been elected for the first time, in 1384, he had still been in his twenties, and at least eight of the MPs of Henry VI’s reign were of a similar age: Warre (1449), only about 24, Stourton (1425) and Baynton (1431) both 25, and Cheyne (1429) 27, while Paulet, Green and John Seymour II, whose dates of birth are not recorded, were almost certainly their contemporaries. The youngest of all the shire knights was Thomas Hungerford, who at date of his election in 1459 had not even attained his majority.

It is possible to discern political groupings in the changing pattern of representation, where the leadership of major landowners in the county played a part. Traced back to before 1415, the influence of Sir Walter Hungerford (Lord Hungerford from 1426), continued to prevail far into Henry VI’s reign. Hungerford had himself sat in the Commons in seven Parliaments, the last (in 1414) as Speaker of the House, and his abiding interest in parliamentary affairs may have lain behind the selection of suitable candidates in the period here under review. His friends, close associates, servants or even kinsmen filled as many as 21 of the 22 seats in the 11 Parliaments assembled between May 1421 and 1433, inclusive. Members of this intimate circle included Baynton, Cheyne and Paulet, while Milborne was steward of Hungerford’s estates and Darell served as under treasurer of England by his nomination. The exception to this near monopoly of Hungerford associates was Sturmy, elected to the first Parliament of the reign, for he, of an older generation to Hungerford, had never formed an amicable relationship with him or his forebears. It is of interest that this particular election of 1422 was verified by 52 attestors, a number well above the average for Wiltshire, which perhaps points to disagreement at the hustings. An even stronger case for controversy may be made for the election of 1435, when the number of listed attestors reached 75 (many more than on any other occasion in the fifteenth century). The outcome was the return of Sir Edmund Hungerford (Lord Walter’s younger son), in company with Sturmy’s grandson John Seymour I, who, contrary to the practice of several years, did not belong to the Hungerford circle. A significant factor in 1435 may have been the absence abroad of Lord Hungerford himself. Thereafter, the latter’s influence on Wiltshire’s representation became less marked, although men associated with him filled both seats in the Parliaments of 1437 and February 1449. Subsequent elections of Seymour in 1439 and 1445, and the choice of the parliamentary novices Green and Lye in 1442 and Beauchamp and St. Loe in 1447, signal a further change, and perhaps a weakening of Hungerford authority in the locality (although Lye was to serve as Lord Hungerford’s steward in Wiltshire later on). After Lord Walter’s death in the autumn of 1449 the influence of his family waned; his son and heir, Robert, 2nd Lord Hungerford, failed to distinguish himself on the national stage.

Lord Walter, a leading member of the Council of Henry VI’s minority, treasurer of England from 1426 to 1432, and incumbent of major duchy of Lancaster offices, provided a bridge between Wiltshire’s gentry and the centre of government. Personal contact with him counted for much, and in return for his patronage he might reasonably have expected the support of well-wishers in the Commons. For instance, during the Parliaments of 1427 and 1431 he could look to his under treasurer, Darell, for assistance in preparing summaries of Exchequer records to demonstrate the financial state of the realm to the Lords. Hungerford himself belonged to an outstanding group of Members returned to Parliament for Wiltshire under Richard II and the first two Lancastrian monarchs, who all took a prominent part in national affairs. They included Walter’s father, Sir Thomas Hungerford†, the infamous Sir Henry Green†, and five of the known Speakers of the period.21 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 684-5: Sir Thomas Hungerford in 1377 (Jan.), Sir William Sturmy 1404 (Oct.), William Stourton† 1413 (May), Sir Walter Hungerford 1414 (Apr.), and Sir Walter Beauchamp† 1416 (Mar.). Sturmy was then representing Devon, and Stourton Dorset. One of the latter, Sturmy, was also elected in the period under review. A diplomat and former member of the King’s Council, he held office for over 18 years as chief steward of the estates of Henry IV’s queen, and received as a reward royal annuities of 40 marks. While many of those elected during Henry VI’s reign were of lesser stature, the achievements of a few were far from negligible. Shotesbrooke, another accomplished diplomat, albeit one whose skills were not properly exploited until after he represented Wiltshire, currently received 70 marks a year by grant of the first two Lancastrian Kings. John Stourton (returned in 1425 and 1432) was introduced to Henry VI’s Council after the King attained his majority and installed as treasurer of his Household from 1446 to 1453. Three other prominent members of the Household also represented Wiltshire: Sir Edmund Hungerford, one of a select group of just four carvers in attendance on the King, was returned in 1435; and in 1447 the county elected Sir William Beauchamp, another carver who enjoyed a close personal relationship with the monarch and a number of annuities and offices by his grant, along with John St. Loe, an esquire for the King’s body, whose royal annuities amounted to over £113. The return of Beauchamp and St. Loe to this particular Parliament, uniquely summoned to meet at Bury St. Edmunds, points to a break in the pattern of Wiltshire’s representation, for besides both being courtiers (in itself an unusual occurrence), both were newcomers to the Commons (something that rarely happened). The Parliament, summoned, or so it was rumoured, in order to bring down the King’s uncle the duke of Gloucester, was packed with an exceptionally large number of Household retainers. Some significance should therefore be attached to the presence of the treasurer of the Household, Stourton, when the county court had met to make its choice of MPs.

It is perhaps possible to see in the election of Seymour in 1435 a reflection of the interests of the duke of Gloucester, under whom he had served both in France as a soldier and at home in forest administration, but around the time of his next Parliament, that of 1439-40, Seymour disengaged himself from Gloucester’s affinity, then forming instead an association with the duke’s political opponent Cardinal Henry Beaufort, who appointed him constable of Farnham castle. Although links between Beaufort and certain other MPs for Wiltshire are on record – notably with regard to the support for him shown by Robert Andrew during the Parliament of Bats (1426), and in the personal relationship between his family and Stourton – there is nothing to suggest that Beaufort made any effort actively to influence the outcome of Wiltshire’s elections. Of Stourton himself more may be said. His name appears as a witness on six extant parliamentary indentures, including that of 1426 when his uncle Shotesbrooke was elected. More significantly, when, in the autumn of 1449, Lord Stourton’s youthful and inexperienced son-in-law Warre was elected to Parliament, the peer’s retainer William Twyneho* stood surety for his appearance in the Commons.

Although the duke of York possessed substantial estates in Wiltshire, only one of the county’s MPs is known to have been closely connected with him. He, Russell, who had served under York in France, held office as steward of these estates, and it is significant that he secured election to the Parliament of 1450, which met in the autumn following Cade’s rebellion and at a time when the duke was preparing to mount a challenge against those prevailing in the King’s counsels. Evidence from elsewhere points to the duke’s active electioneering to secure supporters in the Lower House. Wiltshire was still in a state of unrest following the murder of Bishop Aiscough, yet the election of Russell was balanced by the unusual choice of Whittocksmead as his companion, for although Whittocksmead was the veteran of seven Parliaments he had never before represented a shire. What commended him was his office as bailiff of the liberties of the bishop of Salisbury in which he had been kept on by Aiscough’s replacement, Richard Beauchamp, an intimate of the King and brother of Lord St. Amand. While, towards the end of the Parliament, Russell might have privately backed Thomas Young II* in advocating their patron as contingent heir to the throne, and he went on to sit in the first Parliament summoned by York’s son, Edward IV, there is little evidence to suggest that his partisanship was emulated by any of the other Wiltshire MPs, save perhaps Winslow. Rather, staunch support for the house of Lancaster, notably from Chief Justice Fortescue and those closely linked with the Hungerfords (such as Baynton), is more readily apparent. In this context the election of the young Thomas Hungerford to the Coventry Parliament of 1459 which proscribed and attainted the Yorkist lords, is a reflection of the more widely-held sympathies of the Wiltshire gentry. Even so, while Thomas eventually met the fate of a traitor under Edward IV, his great-uncle Sir Edmund successfully weathered the political storms.

The Wiltshire elections were invariably held at the shire court at Wilton, and always on a Tuesday, even when (as happened before the Parliament summoned to assemble on 21 Jan. 1437), it meant that the court had to meet on Christmas Day.22 C219/15/1. Perhaps as many as 422 different men are recorded as attesting the 32 surviving indentures for the Parliaments from 1407 to 1478, but even so this can have been only a small proportion of the county’s adult male population. There is little in the records to suggest that elections were regularly contested, at least if the numbers of attestors named on each occasion is anything to go by. In all but five cases that number did not exceed 33, and (although more out of the ordinary) the listing of 40 attestors both in 1420 and February 1449, the 42 in 1447, and the 52 in 1422, may suggest nothing more than that on those occasions the choice of MPs had not been entirely straightforward. The return for the Parliament of 1435 stands out for the presence at the shire court of as many as 75 men whom the sheriff thought should set their seals to the indenture, so it may be supposed that there had been a contest, perhaps one, as has been surmised above, occasioned by the absence overseas of Lord Hungerford, whose associates and servants had previously dominated the returns. It may be remarked, however, that the sheriff, Sir Stephen Popham*, belonged to the Hungerfords’ circle, as too did at least ten of those present in the shire court; they would no doubt have supported the candidacy of Sir Edmund Hungerford, while an equal number of the attestors were friends of the other successful candidate, Seymour.23 C219/14/5.

Some significance should also be attached to the return to the Parliament at Bury St. Edmunds in 1447, for whereas at earlier elections it had rarely happened that a belted knight attested a return,24 Two knights attended the election to Hen. V’s first Parl. in 1413, but no-one else of this status figured among the attestors for the next 20 years. Then, two knights did so in 1433 and 1442: C219/11/2; 14/4; 15/2. in 1447 four knights did so, and all of them belonged to the county’s higher gentry: Baynton, the brothers Sir Robert and Sir Edmund Hungerford, and Sir John Stourton. Also, although few men attesting the indentures in earlier years had been expressly styled ‘esquire’,25 One in 1435 and seven in 1442: C219/14/5; 15/2. as many as 14 ‘esquires’ did so on this occasion. The two men elected, both of them for the first and only times, were important members of the King’s household – one of his carvers and a favoured esquire for his body – so the unusual presence among the attestors of another carver and the treasurer of the Household was surely significant.26 C219/15/4.

Only a third (nine) of the 26 MPs are known to have ever attested an election in this county,27 Baynton, Sir Edmund Hungerford, Henry and Robert Long, Lye, Milborne, Stourton, Whittocksmead and Wroughton. although a few did so quite regularly. For example, Baynton and Stourton were both present on six occasions and Milborne’s name was listed 12 times. Seven of the MPs sometimes participated in elections in other shires, and it is of especial interest to note that John Seymour I did so in Somerset in 1435 when he himself was elected for Wiltshire. This was in breach of the statute which held that electors and elected alike should be resident in the county where the election was being held.

The returns for Wiltshire also recorded the elections for up to 16 of its parliamentary boroughs, usually in the form of a schedule attached to the indenture. On the schedules were simply listed the names of those elected along with those of mainpernors who were supposed to guarantee their appearance in the Commons. As was clearly the case in some other counties, the names of these sureties were not always genuine: sometimes they rhymed with each other, and repetitions were not uncommon. That in Wiltshire they were completely fictitious on at least two occasions in our period cannot be doubted. On the return following an election conducted at Wilton on 16 June 1433 by the sheriff Walter Strickland I* the surnames of the mainpernors for the knights and burgesses read as ‘God Save Alle This Faire Compayne Ande Gyffe Theym Grace Weel Forto Spede For Fayn Wold They Been Ryght Mery [They Been Ryght Mery – repeated] This Too Pray Hyt Hys Nede Godde Thatte Alle This Worlde Ganne Make Ande For Usse Dyed Apon Thee Roode Tree Save Usse Alle’.28 C219/14/4. They thus formed an acrostic making up a benign prayer for the well-being of those representing the local communities at Westminster. Whether this may be taken as an expression of the sentiment felt generally in the shire court, or was a personal whimsy indulged by Strickland is impossible to say. In the previous year, 1432, something similar had been attempted by the sheriff John Seymour I or his clerks. Then, two legends about popular rebels were expressly called to mind, for the surnames of the mainpernors were those of notorious Cumbrian outlaws and Robin Hood and his companions, and included the phrase ‘Robyn Hode Inne Grenewode Stode Godeman Was Hee’.29 C219/14/3; J.C. Holt, Robin Hood, 69-70.

In this period Wiltshire contained more parliamentary boroughs than any other county – 16 altogether – although not all of the 16 were represented in all the Parliaments of Henry VI’s reign. Absent from the Commons since 1413, Downton’s MPs reappeared in at least eight of the nine Parliaments between 1442 and 1459; and, of greater significance, it was for the first recorded times that Wootton Bassett was represented (in the Parliament of 1447), Hindon and Westbury in that of February 1449, and Heytesbury in November 1449. In fact, it was only in Wiltshire that completely new parliamentary boroughs were created in the 1440s.30 Although in other places, such as Plymouth and New Windsor, representation which had been dormant since the early 14th cent. was revived. The initiative for these enfranchisements lay, of course, with the government, but none of the four boroughs were the product of a royal charter. The practical mechanism employed is assumed to have been the sheriff’s precept, sent to specific local authorities after he received a writ of summons. In 1447 the sheriff was William Stafford*, nephew of the chancellor, Archbishop John Stafford, and the addition of Wootton Bassett to the usual list of boroughs making returns may have been an attempt to find secure seats for candidates agreeable to the government in what threatened to be a contentious assembly. In 1449 the three new parliamentary boroughs followed instructions from the sheriff John Norris*, a leading courtier who enjoyed amicable relations with the King’s chief minister, the duke of Suffolk, a man undoubtedly in need of support in the forthcoming sessions.

The practice of returning the majority of the Wiltshire borough MPs in the form of an unattested schedule lent itself to manipulation, and it is thus not surprising to find periodic evidence of irregularities which may indicate that these documents had been tampered with. It is quite possible that alterations to the schedules sent from Wiltshire in Henry V’s reign (with regard to a single MP in 1413 and 1421 and to three in 1414), and in the first half of Henry VI’s (three in 1422, and one each in 1426, 1433 and 1442), may have resulted from scribal errors, although the fact that many of these changes related to the MPs for Great Bedwyn must arouse the suspicion that they were not merely coincidental. Such doubts find confirmation in the marked increase of signs of tampering from the beginning of 1449. The schedule for the Parliament of February 1449 contains names of MPs written over erasures for five boroughs (including the previously unrepresented ones of Hindon and Westbury); and the same applies to those of two MPs in 1449 (Nov.), four in 1450 and several more in 1459. This last included both MPs for Cricklade, Great Bedwyn, Westbury and Wilton, and one of those for Hindon. Nor is the evidence of tampering confined to the schedules, for it also occurs on the rare occasions when separate borough indentures are extant. Most notably, an examination of the electoral indentures for the Parliament of 1453 reveals that the names of both Members returned for Calne, Great Bedwyn, Heytesbury and Ludgershall and one of each of those for Chippenham, Hindon, Westbury and Wootton Basset were written over erasures, meaning that as many as 12 of the 32 borough representatives from Wiltshire in that Parliament replaced other men who had been chosen originally.

While the mischievous play on words with respect to the mainpernors for the shire and borough Members of 1432 and 1433 may be dismissed as a harmless exercise, the signs of tampering on a regular basis are much more serious. They provide an insight into procedures employed to secure the return of outsiders, or otherwise influence the outcome of elections. Thus, in 1450 the name of Thomas Thorpe*, the treasurer’s remembrancer in the Exchequer, was interlineated on the return for Ludgershall; in 1453 Thorpe’s associate, the Lincoln’s Inn lawyer Thomas Umfray*, and the usher of the Parliament chambers, Richard Baron*, were given seats for Great Bedwyn, and in 1459, again for Great Bedwyn, the names of the privy-seal clerk, John Alomby*, and the obscure northerner Geoffrey Southworth* replaced two others which were rubbed out. In all probability alterations such as these were made not by the sheriff or his officers at the county court, but after the electoral returns had been delivered at Parliament’s meeting-place. In certain respects Wiltshire’s experience found a parallel in Dorset, where between February 1449 and 1455 at least 12 borough seats were taken by outsiders who, not only strangers to the boroughs themselves but also to the county, were all busy about the Exchequer, in official or unofficial capacities. There too, it may be surmised that records were emended after their return into Chancery, sometimes perhaps on the initiative of Thomas Thorpe.

Otherwise, external influence on the representation of the Wiltshire boroughs may be seen to have emanated from the county’s most important landowners, Sir William Sturmy, until his death in 1427, and his descendants the Seymours thereafter; John, Lord Stourton, particularly during his ascendancy in the King’s counsels; and above all the Hungerfords, whose servants and associates took at least 35 borough seats of the period.