Malmesbury

Occupying a natural defensive site on high ground and possessing a major bridge over the Avon, Malmesbury had grown up around the local abbey for which it was famous. In spite of the Black Death, it had a taxable population of 402 in 1377, indicating that it was significantly larger than four other Wiltshire boroughs, Devizes, Chippenham, Calne and Cricklade, and only slightly smaller than a fifth, Marlborough. By the later Middle Ages its main industry was the production of woollen cloth, a source of considerable prosperity by the early 1540s. It therefore appears that Henry VI’s reign either preceded or coincided with a period of growing fortune for the town, but there was no constitutional change to match any economic advance. Malmesbury did not receive any new charters in the period under review, and it was not until March 1462 that the Crown granted letters confirming its previous charter, that of 1411.1 VCH Wilts. xiv. 131-2, 146; The Commons 1386-1421, i. 703; CPR, 1461-7, p. 137; CChR, v. 443.

The complete loss of the municipal archives has ensured that it is impossible to discern the exact nature of borough government at Malmesbury. It would nevertheless appear that the local guild merchant, comprising the whole community of burgesses, controlled its administration. At the head of the guild was its alderman, assisted by two stewards and a group of ‘capital burgesses’, of whom there were 16 or more in the mid thirteenth century but just ten in the sixteenth. By the sixteenth century, three other bodies, known as the 24, the landholders and commoners, were likewise involved in the government of the borough. The municipal authorities did not however possess sole jurisdiction in Malmesbury, where the abbey’s officers and, for a time, several queens of England exercised authority as well. Since King John’s reign the abbey had held the so-called ‘hundred of Malmesbury’ and the two neighbouring hundreds of Chedglow and Startley, privileges for which the monks paid the Crown a fee farm of £20 p.a. At Malmesbury many of the functions of government normally performed by the corporation of a borough were retained by the abbey’s manor court, and William North, the ‘bailiff of Malmesbury’, to whom the court of King’s bench addressed a writ in April 1431, was probably an employee of the abbey. As for royal consorts, by the late fourteenth century it had become customary for the queen to receive the fee farm as part of her dower. She also held the franchise of return of writs at Malmesbury, and her interests there meant that her officers were involved in local affairs, none more so than her bailiff in Wiltshire. Until 1406 he acted as the borough’s returning officer at parliamentary elections, and among those who sat as MPs for Malmesbury in the late fourteenth century were two men who served Richard II’s queen, Anne of Bohemia, as bailiff: Alexander Oxenford† and John Parker†. The fee farm of Malmesbury also comprised part of the dower of Henry IV’s widow, Joan of Navarre. She survived until 1437, but there is no evidence that any of the men listed at the head of this survey was likewise her bailiff in Wiltshire, although at least one of them might have been in her service. Following Joan’s death, the farm reverted to the Crown, and it did not feature in the dower arrangements made for Henry VI’s bride, Margaret of Anjou.2 VCH Wilts. xiv. 5, 131, 139, 149-50; The Commons 1386-1421, i. 703-4; KB145/6/9; RP, v. 118-20.

It is surprising that the existence of potentially competing authorities at Malmesbury did not cause greater conflict than is apparent, even though early in Henry VI’s reign the burgesses pursued actions at Westminster connected with disputes with the abbey and with the alleged illegal grazing of livestock. The next known episodes of trouble between the borough and the abbey occurred when the abbot and several townsmen disputed the ownership of certain holdings in the town during the late 1440s and early 1450s.3 KB27/656, rots. 60d, 76d, 79, 79d, att. rots. 1d, 2; 756, att. rot. 1; 760, rots. 56, 56d, 57; 761, rots. 59, 59d, 60, 60d. There are also hints of political unrest in the town in those years. The duke of Somerset and other justices of oyer and terminer in Wiltshire took indictments for treason against John Dyer, a yeoman from Lacock, in July 1451. The jurors stated that Dyer and other ‘traitors and rebels’ had gathered at Malmesbury and elsewhere in the county at the beginning of September 1450, to plot the death of the King and the destruction of the kingdom. Dyer gave himself up at the Marshalsea prison in London in November 1452, but when he was brought into the court of King’s bench he produced royal letters of pardon dated the previous April and was released. It is impossible to tell whether there was any truth in the seemingly far-fetched indictments, which did not in any case implicate any townsmen in the alleged sedition, let alone any of Malmesbury’s known MPs.4 KB27/766, rex rot. 9.

It would appear that at least 14 men sat as MPs for Malmesbury in Henry VI’s reign, although the vagaries of late medieval spelling raise the possibility that John Nicholas and John Nicoll III were the same man. It is also possible that the borough had as many as 21 MPs (or 20 if ‘Nicholas’ was merely a variant of ‘Nicoll’) in this period. First, the borough’s returns to the Parliaments of 1439, 1445 and 1460 have not survived and it is conceivable (if unlikely) that two novice MPs were returned to each of these three assemblies, so adding another six to the total. Secondly, damage to the return of 1455 has ensured that the full name of ‘Hasard’, John Nicoll III’s companion, is unknown. In all likelihood, he was Thomas Hasard, who had sat with Nicoll in the previous Parliament, although it is possible that he was Richard Hasard* of Malmesbury, a close relative of Thomas, if not his son.

Almost all of the known Members for Malmesbury in the three and a half decades prior to 1422 resided there or elsewhere in Wiltshire,5 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 704. and outsiders had yet properly to encroach on the parliamentary representation of the borough in the period under review. In the fifteenth century as a whole, over half of Malmesbury’s known MPs resided in the town,6 VCH Wilts. xiv. 155. an observation that also runs true for Henry VI’s reign in particular. Most of the 14 lived in the borough or its immediate environs, and perhaps only John Monmouth was not a native of Wiltshire. Even Thomas Drew, apparently a non-resident, was very probably familiar to the electorate since he owned lands and rents in Malmesbury. Notwithstanding the strong association between the borough and a majority of its representatives, there is no evidence that any of them (or, indeed, their known predecessors in the period 1386-1421),7 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 704. came from families with an established tradition of sitting for it in the Commons. Yet the 14 included fathers and sons in the persons of the Wests and the Nicolls, while Drew was the son of Laurence Drew†, a former knight of the shire for Berkshire.

Even if most – if not all – the MPs were no strangers to Malmesbury, few were typical townsmen. Only the two Nicolls, both wool-mongers, certainly followed a trade, although the younger man subsequently entered the law, a profession also practised by John West, Drew and Hasard and, perhaps, by Robert West and Monmouth. There were of course advantages for boroughs in electing members of the legal profession who might prove effective advocates for the burgesses. On some occasions they might be prepared to forswear their parliamentary wages, although Drew (perhaps, indeed, because he regarded such matters with a lawyer’s eyes) expected reimbursement for representing Malmesbury in the Commons in 1426. An esquire distrained for knighthood in 1430, Drew outranked all the other MPs in terms of social status and wealth, but the other lawyers or putative lawyers among them were gentry and Hasard and Robert West sometimes featured as esquires in the records as well. Among the non-lawyers, Everard, Palmer and Studley were also members of the gentry and it is likely John Wyke was of similar rank.

Among the 14, Drew stands out in that he inherited estates in Wiltshire and Berkshire worth over £70 p.a., and perhaps considerably more, holdings he augmented with acquisitions of his own. Where it exists, the evidence for the real property owned by his fellow MPs indicates that they were much lesser landowners, whatever any other sources of income they may have enjoyed. Palmer, for example, was very likely the William Palmer calculated to derive £25 p.a. from his estates for the purposes of the subsidy of 1435-6. Assessments for the later subsidy of 1450-1 valued Hasard’s holdings at £18 p.a., Robert West’s at £12, Everard’s at £10 and Monmouth’s at just £6.

Owing to the unfortunate loss of Malmesbury’s records, it is impossible to gauge the extent to which previous participation in local government among the 14 was of significance in the borough’s choice of its parliamentary representatives. A Westminster plea roll provides the only evidence of such involvement, revealing that John Nicoll III was alderman of the guild merchant at Malmesbury a few months before gaining election to his last known Parliament in 1459. Just over half of the MPs, however, served in the administration of Wiltshire or neighbouring counties, of whom Drew, Everard, John Nicoll II, Studley, Robert West and, apparently, Wyke did so before sitting for Malmesbury for the first (or only) time. Yet only Drew and, it appears, Wyke were regular members of ad hoc commissions and received appointments to some of the higher county offices like that of j.p., although Drew had yet to join the bench (in Berkshire) when he gained election for the borough in 1426.

Three of the 14 (Everard, Hasard and Robert West) served on the Crown lands in Wiltshire, all as verderers of Braydon, a royal forest not far from Malmesbury. Hasard and West were certainly in office when first elected to Parliament, and it is likely that Everard held the position when standing for the Commons in 1442. Even if the King did not directly support their candidacies when they stood for Parliament, the royal connexion may well have helped them to gain election. It is worth noting that Hasard’s Parliaments included those of 1447 and 1453 and that West sat in that of 1459, all assemblies in which the House of Commons appears to have contained a larger than usual Household element. At least one of the 14 was definitely a member of the Household, for Monmouth was a royal serjeant-at-arms at the time of his election in 1449, and it would appear that he owed his seat in the Commons to his royal attachment. Palmer was probably a servant of Joan, widow of Henry IV, whose dower included the fee farm of Malmesbury, where she also possessed various jurisdictional privileges by grant of the Crown. It is nevertheless impossible to say whether his apparent royal connexion played any part in the frequency of his elections to the Commons over the course of two decades.

There is no evidence that any of the 14 served in central government or, with the exception of Everard, were followers of the foremost lay or ecclesiastical magnates of the realm. Everard entered the service of the powerful Hungerfords, but it is impossible to establish whether his link with the family influenced his election to Parliament. As was typical for members of their profession, however, the lawyers among the MPs enjoyed connexions with important clients. Drew, for example, was a witness and surety for John Norris*, a prominent member of the King’s household, as well as a counsellor of Stephen Haytfeld* and other leading landowners. For a number of years, Hasard had ties with John Nanfan*, one of the leading esquires of south-west England, for whom he acted as an attorney in the common pleas. He was also a feoffee, surety and witness for members of the Wiltshire gentry and probably counted the abbot of Malmesbury among his clients. The abbot certainly employed John West, before the two men fell out in the 1440s over West’s fees and other expenses. Like Hasard, the younger John Nicoll was associated with Nanfan, for whom he was a receiver of writs and warrants at Westminster when the latter was sheriff of Wiltshire in 1451-2. Nicoll also performed the same role in 1454 for one of Nanfan’s successors as sheriff, Sir John Willoughby†, but of much greater significance was his connexion with (Sir) John Fortescue*, c.j.KB. He had begun to act as a surety and feoffee for the chief justice by the later 1440s, and he rode as Fortescue’s associate justice on the home assize circuit in 1455 and 1460. Coincidentally or not, the final two of Nicoll’s four known Parliaments sat during periods of political ascendancy for the Lancastrian government and Court with which Fortescue had such close links. Apart from those who were certainly lawyers, Robert West was likewise associated with figures of some prominence, as perhaps was Wyke. On one occasion, for example, West and (Sir) John (afterwards Lord) Stourton II* were co-plaintiffs in a lawsuit, and there is some evidence that the hard to identify Wyke was associated with two influential knights, Sir Henry Hussey* and Sir William Sturmy*, during the latter part of Henry V’s reign and the early years of that of Henry VI.

As in the previous three and a half decades,8 Ibid. the period under review witnessed a considerable degree of continuity in the parliamentary representation of Malmesbury. One of the 14, William Palmer, sat for the borough in at least 11 Parliaments, comprising the last five of Henry V’s reign and three pairs of consecutive assemblies, those of 1427 and 1429, 1432 and 1433 and 1435 and 1437. Another, John West, was a Member of all but one of the first ten Parliaments of Henry VI’s reign. He may also have sat after the mid 1430s, since it seems likely that he, rather than a younger namesake, was the John West returned in 1450. The election of West’s son, Robert, in 1449 and again a decade later ensured a major role in borough affairs for their family. Of the other MPs, Hasard and John Nicoll III were each elected to the Commons on at least five occasions (perhaps six in the case of Hasard) and Gore on four, three of them prior to 1422. Studley and Drew also gained election to more than one Parliament, although neither of them certainly sat more than once for Malmesbury. They are the only men known to have represented other constituencies as well. The former had represented the borough of Calne in the penultimate Parliament of Henry V’s reign while Drew was a knight of the shire for Berkshire in 1442. It is also worth noting the continuity of representation provided by three of the MPs in particular, John West, Hasard and John Nicoll III. In only one of the Parliaments of the reign for which the names of Malmesbury’s MPs have survived, that of 1426, did none of them sit. In just a couple of these Parliaments (those of 1422 and 1426) were both of Malmesbury’s MPs apparently newcomers to the Commons, although the loss of the returns of 1439, 1445 and 1460 makes it possible that there were other occasions when two newcomers were elected. Like Palmer and Studley, Gore also first entered the Commons before 1422. None of the 14 certainly sat after the deposition of Henry VI, but the gaps in the evidence for Malmesbury’s representation in the later fifteenth century are particularly large.

For much of the first half of the fifteenth century, the formal elections of the MPs for Malmesbury and the other Wiltshire boroughs took place in the county court, to which these towns sent delegates for that purpose, although in all likelihood the actual elections occurred before the county court met. While administratively convenient for the sheriff, this system was open to abuse by that officer, since it was particularly easy for him to omit the names of anyone whom he (or others prompting him) did not wish to see returned. Introduced in 1407, it remained the practice until officially brought to an end by a statute of the Parliament of 1445. For the greater part of the period under review, therefore, the names of the MPs for the Wiltshire boroughs simply appeared in the schedules attached to the returns for the county’s knights of the shire. Just two of the separate election returns for Malmesbury from after 1445 are extant, those of 1453 and 1455. The parties to the first were the sheriff of Wiltshire, Edmund Stradling, on the one hand and ‘the burgesses of the borough of Malmesbury’ on the other. Apart from the newly elected MPs, Thomas Hasard and John Nicoll III, it names just two other burgesses, John White and John Hamond. Attached to it are the seals of the latter pair, perhaps the then stewards of Malmesbury, who were acting in ‘the name of all the burgesses’. By contrast, the alderman and 13 or more burgesses were named in the badly stained and barely legible indenture of 1455. It is not clear whether participation in that election was restricted to these attestors, although it seems likely that the franchise narrowed over the next century and a half.9 M. McKisack, Parlty. Repn. English Bors. 59-60; VCH Wilts. v. 74-75; xiv. 154; PROME, xi. 499-501. Unusually, the electors returned Thomas Hasard to the Parliament of 1453 in his absence, since he and 19 associates were then prisoners in Gloucester castle, where they remained until their release a month later. His fellow inmates included his putative son, Richard, and Nicholas Jones* (who had respectively won seats in the same assembly as Members for Wootton Bassett and Cricklade), and John Cricklade*. Save for Jones, who resided near Tetbury in Gloucestershire, all the prisoners were from Malmesbury or elsewhere in Wiltshire. Why the electors of Malmesbury and the other two boroughs should have elected men not then at liberty is a mystery.

It would appear that – in the early years of the reign at least – Malmesbury paid its MPs the 2s. per day that many English boroughs customarily allowed its parliamentary burgesses, since that was the rate that Thomas Drew claimed when he sued its authorities for the wages owed to him for attending the Parliament of 1426.