Worcester

A cathedral city by the Severn, Worcester lay at a junction of several major roads, including those linking south-west England with the north and mid Wales with London. Thanks to this convergence of highways and its bridge across the river, the city was one of the most important distribution centres in the west Midlands. It was also a minor inland port, where goods borne up river from Bristol were unloaded for carriage overland to Warwick and Coventry, and a centre of exchange for agricultural produce, namely grain from the open-field farming area to the east on the one hand and livestock from the west of England and Wales on the other. Worcester’s status as a county town and a centre of diocesan administration brought it further economic benefits, although cloth was the main source of its later medieval prosperity. The fifteenth century saw the rise of the city as a centre for the specialized manufacture of textiles rather than the mere finishing of cloth made in the surrounding countryside. As such, it produced broadcloths of the highest quality, sending the vast majority to London for sale and export abroad. One observer noted the ‘great cloth-making’ there in 1466 and reported that most of the population were engaged in it. The development of the industry meant that Worcester, unlike many other urban settlements, grew in affluence during the later Middle Ages. In terms of taxable wealth, it was ranked 25th among the towns and cities of the realm in 1377; by the 1520s it had risen to 16th position. In the late fourteenth century, Worcester is likely to have had some 2,300 inhabitants; by about 1540 its population had perhaps nearly doubled. Most of its inhabitants lived within the city walls, entered through six gates and the bridge. The cathedral and the royal castle comprised an enclave in the south-west corner, covering the parish of St. Michael-in-Bedwardine and exempt from the jurisdiction of the municipal authorities. The principal suburb beyond the walls was the Foregate to the north. The rebuilding carried out at Worcester in the late fifteenth century (of which New Street is an important example) probably arose from the pressure of a rising population as well as the city’s prosperity. Such building work contributed to the overall visual impact of Worcester, repeatedly described as ‘fair’ by the Tudor antiquary John Leland.2 A.D. Dyer, City of Worcester in 16th Cent. 13-15, 17, 18, 26-27, 57, 59-60, 70-71, 85, 93, 100, 113, 162; The Commons 1386-1421, i. 725.

There were no great changes in the system of government at Worcester to match the economic development of the later Middle Ages, the basic constitutional structure of which seems to have changed little after the thirteenth century. The foundation of the city’s privileges was its charter of 1227, which gave it a guild merchant and fixed its fee farm at £30 p.a. During the succeeding centuries, there were periodic confirmations and sometimes augmentations of Worcester’s privileges (as in 1396 when its bailiffs became de facto j.p.s.), although the charter it received at the beginning of Henry VI’s reign was merely a confirmation of previous ones. It cost 13s. 4d. to purchase the freedom of the city, although former apprentices paid a reduced fee. For most of the period under review, the Crown assigned parts of the fee farm to others, the majority of them servants of the royal household. The two bailiffs were the chief civic officers at Worcester. Elected annually, they were primarily responsible for law and order, and received no salary; they had to fund themselves from the judicial proceeds of their position. The bailiffs were assisted by two pairs of aldermen and chamberlains, of whom the former were mainly concerned with economic regulation and the latter looked after the city’s general finances. The office of chamberlain, introduced at some point between 1434 and 1466, was one of the few innovations of this period.3 Dyer, 14, 191, 198-9; The Commons 1386-1421, i. 725; CPR, 1422-9, pp. 103-4; 1436-41, p. 237; 1441-6, p. 178; 1446-52, p. 548; 1452-61, pp. 471, 591.

The ordinances promulgated by the municipal authorities in September 1466 largely codified existing customs and practice, meaning that they offer a valuable insight into the workings of civic government before that date. By 1466, the city’s council consisted of a higher and lower chamber, the 24 and the 48, which together formed a common council. Most power lay with the 24, although the 48, who ‘represented’ the citizens at large, played an important part in financial matters since their consent was required for any tax or loan. It also fell to the 48 to select one of the chamberlains. Co-option was the method used to fill vacancies in both chambers, with citizens of substance and good standing supplying replacements for the 48. Later bye-laws would restrict the office of bailiff to members of the 24 and membership of the 24 to members of the 48. (Ironically, this tightening of oligarchic control coincided with an increased reluctance to accept civic office, since the later fifteenth century saw a sharp rise in fines imposed on those who refused to take up such positions.) The ordinances of 1466 also regulated the annual election of the two bailiffs, a senior or high bailiff and his associate and general assistant, the low bailiff. By the later fifteenth century, the latter almost invariably served as high bailiff in the following year but it is hard to discern such a system in operation in previous decades, given that existing lists of bailiffs are either incomplete or inaccurate. The ordinances introduced other regulations as well. From henceforth, new citizens were to become freemen of Worcester publicly rather than privately and to reside in the city (in the past various distinguished individuals admitted to the freedom, often lawyers, received exemptions from this requirement), and there was to be no quarrelling in the common council chamber. As for parliamentary elections, these were to take place openly in the guildhall, with the successful candidates, chosen ‘by the moste voice’, being men of good reputation, not subject to outlawry or any other legal process. Evidently, the intention of these regulations was to prevent a repetition of previous controversies, including disputed parliamentary elections for which there is no longer any evidence. A bye-law introduced after 1466 also hints at disagreement within the city, for it forbade – upon pain of heavy penalties – the use of aggressive language in the council chamber.4 English Gilds (EETS xl), 376-409; Dyer, 191, 197-8; The Commons 1386-1421, i. 725-6; V. Green, Hist. Worcester, i. p. xcvii.

As for quarrels between the civic authorities and other institutions or individuals, there is little clear evidence of any major disputes of the type that occurred elsewhere. During the early 1430s at least, relations between the citizens and Worcester cathedral priory, the most important local religious house, were sufficiently cordial for the two sides to conclude an agreement intended to safeguard the monks’ water supply.5 Worcester Chs. (Worcs. Hist. Soc. 1909), 162. At an individual level, the Oseneys, a prominent local family that provided two of the city’s MPs in this period, enjoyed particularly good relations with the monks. Richard Oseney was reputedly a ‘great benefactor’ to them, while his son Thomas acted as an attorney at Westminster for their prior.6 The Commons 1386-1421, iii. 881; KB27/753, rot. 9d; CP40/760, rot. 372d. This does not mean that everything was always well between other citizens and Worcester priory: by the later 1440s, for example, William Clyve, another of the city’s MPs, was embroiled in property disputes with the then prior, John Hertilbury.7 KB27/747, rot. 76; CP40/756, rots. 284d, 363; 760, rot. 372d.

Two potential causes of discord between the city and outsiders were navigation on the Severn and the citizens’ dealings with the local gentry. The Severn was economically important to Worcester and other inland ports situated on its banks, and its citizens are likely to have taken an active interest in the petitions by which the Commons of the Parliaments of 1427, 1429 and 1431 sought action against those Welshmen and others who would disrupt river traffic. At the same time, the tolls the city itself levied on such traffic were not always acceptable to outsiders. As for the local gentry, one of the bye-laws of 1466 indicates a sometimes troubled relationship between them and the citizens in the later fifteenth century. The bye-law forbade the taking of liveries by the latter from the former and hoped for peace and friendship between the citizens and the neighbouring landowners.8 Dyer, 65, 212; PROME, x. 361, 470-1; SC8/25/1241; Statutes, ii. 265.

It would appear that Worcester remained largely uninvolved in the great national political quarrels of the period. By contrast, at Gloucester, less than 30 miles away, there was a rising in 1449 against the local abbot, a figure widely hated for his association with the unpopular government and Court, and in the wake of Cade’s revolt the town was allegedly the scene of a plot to begin a new rebellion against the Crown.9 J. Rhodes, ‘Anarchy at Gloucester in 1449 and 1463’, Glevensis, xxv. 39; Archs. and Local Hist. in Bristol and Glos. ed. Bettey, 27; PPC, vi. 108; KB27/761, rex rots. 15v, 16v; C.L. Kingsford, English Historical Literature, 356. In short, Worcester had little more than a passing association with important national events. William Elton* is said to have stationed himself there in 1450, after he and other Household men had allegedly made plans to waylay Richard, duke of York, on his return from Ireland,10 R.A. Griffiths, Hen. VI, 362. and nine years later the city was chosen as a rendezvous by York and his leading allies. It was while on his way south to meet the duke there in the autumn of 1459 that Lancastrian forces intercepted the earl of Salisbury in Shropshire. Although Salisbury won the resulting battle of Blore Heath, the Yorkist lords subsequently withdrew to Worcester rather than to confront the King at the head of a royal army. While at Worcester, the duke of York and the earls of Salisbury and Warwick went to the cathedral to receive the sacrament and to swear an oath of loyalty to the Crown. They retreated again when the King advanced upon and entered the city, and it was probably from Worcester that Henry VI sent the bishop of Salisbury to offer pardons to the Yorkist lords.11 Ibid. 858; A. Goodman, Wars of the Roses, 29. Before the end of the same year, the citizens, no doubt concerned about these recent events, successfully petitioned the Crown to repair and fortify Worcester’s walls, bridge and gates, using for this purpose broken stones from the walls of the royal castle as well as stones from the bridge crossing the Severn at Bewdley in north Worcestershire. According to their petition, the city’s defences were in such ruin that ‘a few ill disposed persons could freely enter and have so done in the days last past’. In March 1460 the government ordered (Sir) Walter Skulle* and Thomas Throckmorton* to provide for the safekeeping and defence of Worcester against the duke of York and his allies, although it is not known how they reacted to this commission.12 CPR, 1452-61, pp. 528, 566.

At least 28 men sat for Worcester during the troubled reign of Henry VI, although the loss of the returns for 1439, 1445 and 1459 renders any analysis of its parliamentary representation in this period partially speculative rather than definitive. Residence and a prior connexion with the city were evidently important considerations for the electorate, since few (if any) of the MPs were complete outsiders to Worcester. As with their immediate predecessors,13 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 726. the great majority of them appear to have come from the city or the wider county of Worcestershire, or at least to have already established themselves as citizens of Worcester when elected to the Commons. The city would retain a tradition of returning local men into the Tudor period: all bar one of its known MPs between the accessions of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, for example, were resident there and the sole exception lived at nearby Battenhall.14 The Commons 1509-58, i. 237. There is no evidence of any significant family traditions of parliamentary service in the three and half decades before 1422,15 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 726. and the same holds true for the period under review. Nevertheless, John Hall was the son of Richard Halle†, a burgess for the city in three of Henry IV’s Parliaments, the Oseneys were father and son, and the two Pachets were related to each other. Furthermore, William Wood was probably a younger son of John Wood I*, who sat in no fewer than nine Parliaments of the reigns of Henry V and VI, either as a burgess for Worcester or as a knight of the shire for Worcestershire.

At least five of the MPs, Geoffrey Friar, Hugh Jolye, Robert Nelme, John Newton and John Parker, were general merchants, although Nelme and Newton were also known as vintners and Friar appears to have dealt primarily in cloth at the beginning of his career. Others involved in the local cloth trade were Richard Oseney, Maurice Payn (a draper) and Thomas Walsall (a mercer), while Ralph Merston was a baker, John Hall a grocer and Thomas Swyney a butcher. They probably carried out most of their business activities in Worcester and its vicinity, although Hall also pursued a career in London, Swyney had dealings with drovers and butchers from as far afield as Lincolnshire and Friar received licence in 1421 to ship corn and beans from Bristol to Bordeaux. As vintners, Nelme and Newton may have had business contacts overseas and it is possible that Walsall also traded abroad. As many as nine lawyers may have represented Worcester in Parliament during Henry VI’s reign. John Forthey, the two Oseneys and Thomas Pachet were certainly men of law, as probably were John Bykerstath, William Clyve, William Poleyn, John Porter and William Pullesdon. The period 1386-1421, when lawyers played a significant part in the city’s representation in the Commons, presents a similar picture.16 Ibid. 727. In this respect, Worcester was by no means remarkable. Lawyers were, for example, also prominent in the representation of Gloucester, if not at Bristol, the other parliamentary borough in neighbouring Gloucestershire. Forthey was a member of Lincoln’s Inn and Pachet of an inn of chancery, Lyon’s Inn, and both they and Thomas Osney practised as attorneys at Westminster. It would appear that Forthey advanced the furthest in the profession. As one might expect, most of the lawyers or putative lawyers among the 28 enjoyed recognition as ‘gentlemen’. Of the others, Stokes was an ‘esquire’ who appears to have served in the French wars after sitting in Parliament, and Friar entered the ranks of the local gentry through his marriage. Stokes, in joint possession of the Worcestershire manor of Huddington by the early 1430s, may have been a landowner of some standing. There is almost no precise evidence for the wealth, landed or otherwise, of any of the MPs, although assessments for a royal subsidy of 1431 found that both Hall and Swyney possessed holdings in Worcester worth £5 p.a. Elsewhere, Thomas Oseney may have moved to Bristol and acquired property in that town in his later years.

Even if not ‘typical’ townsmen, several of the lawyers or putative lawyers – most notably Richard Oseney – held civic offices, including that of bailiff. At least 16 of the MPs served at least one term as a bailiff, as many as 11 terms in the case of Oseney. A majority of those who attained that position had exercised it before first entering the Commons (or, at least, before 1422) and both Nelme and Swyney gained election to Parliament while in office. Just three of the MPs (Docking, Miles and Payn) certainly became aldermen, although only Docking did so before entering Parliament. None of the 28 appears to have served as a chamberlain or, as one might expect, as a serjeant or constable, although in the late fifteenth century it was felt necessary specifically to exempt the city’s councillors from holding the latter two relatively humble offices, apparently to prevent the malicious election of ‘persons of worship’ to them.17 Dyer, 191. Most of the 11 MPs not known to have served in the government of Worcester, held office elsewhere during their careers, four of them before sitting for the city in Parliament.18 The 11: Bykerstath, Clyve, Forthey, Newton, Thomas Oseney, John Pachet, Porter, Sharp, Stokes, Vely and Wood; the four: Bykerstath, Forthey, Thomas Oseney and Porter. In short, the electors of Worcester preferred candidates of administrative experience when choosing their parliamentary representatives.

Several of the MPs held local office by appointment of the Crown rather than the city. As far as the evidence goes, none of the 28 was a member of the commission of the peace in Worcestershire, although Bykerstath, Forthey and Richard Oseney served as clerks of the peace in the county, a position that Bykerstath and Forthey combined with that of an MP. By contrast, their immediate predecessors of the period 1386-1421 included Thomas Belne†, John Weston† and John Wood I, who between them served many years on the Worcestershire bench.19 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 727. Bykerstath also served as an under sheriff before becoming an MP, as did Thomas Pachet, although the former held the office in neighbouring Herefordshire rather than Worcestershire. Another of Pachet’s offices in the latter county was the important position of escheator, and he completed his term as such just a few years before entering the Commons. Forthey held that office as well, but not until he had sat in his last known Parliament. The Crown appointed six of the MPs to commissions of gaol delivery,20 Broke, the Oseneys, Payn, Pullesdon and Swyney. and four as tax collectors in Worcestershire,21 Hall, Merston, Porter and Sharp. but not until after they had begun their parliamentary careers in most cases. Two of the 28 served as alnager of Worcestershire, an office that the holder farmed from the Crown for his own profit. Parker seized the opportunity to apply for and obtain the farm while he was at Westminster attending the Parliament of 1432. A couple of decades later, Newton became alnager, but he had lost his farm by the time he gained election to his last known Parliament in 1455. None of the MPs appears to have served on the Crown’s estates or in great institutions like the duchy of Lancaster, although Forthey, a lawyer of some prominence, may have held office at Westminster as a filacer of the court of common pleas throughout his time as an MP. He certainly became keeper of the rolls of the Irish chancery in the latter part of his career, some years after he had sat in his last known Parliament.

Several of the MPs, including Forthey, had connexions with members of the lay nobility or important religious institutions and, in some cases at least, these may have been significant for their parliamentary careers. Even if they did not enjoy their patrons’ active support when returned to the Commons, their links with such figures can only have enhanced their status when standing for Parliament. It would appear that Stokes formed an attachment with the King’s uncle, John, duke of Bedford, since on two occasions in the second half of the 1420s, ‘Nicholas Stokes of Worcestershire’ received letters of protection as a member of the duke’s retinue in France. It is likely that this was the MP, although it is unclear whether he was already in Bedford’s service prior to his election in 1422. Forthey became deputy butler and ex officio coroner in the city of London through the good offices of Sir Ralph Butler (afterwards Lord Sudeley) and represented Humphrey, duke of Gloucester, in the court of common pleas at Westminster, although not until his parliamentary career was over. Richard Oseney joined the service of Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, who presumably retained him for his legal counsel. Before entering the Commons, his son Thomas acted as an attorney at Westminster for Worcester priory and a parliamentary proxy for the abbot of Evesham. Poleyn was probably the William Poleyn who served Richard Beauchamp, earl of Warwick, in the wide-ranging role of an auditor in the early 1420s, and Pullesdon, who numbered several members of the Beauchamp affinity among his closer associates, was perhaps a retainer of the same lord. Through having recently served as under sheriff of Worcestershire, Thomas Pachet had indirect links with the Beauchamps’ successor, Richard Neville, earl of Warwick, hereditary sheriff of the county, when he stood for the Commons in 1460. Potentially, the bishop of Worcester was another external influence in civic affairs, although the diocesans of this period were often rather remote figures, spending much of their time at their castle of Hartlebury near Kidderminster or elsewhere, and there are no known links between them and any of the MPs.22 Dyer, 213, 235.

As far as the evidence goes, most of the 28 had brief parliamentary careers, with over half of them gaining election to the Commons just once.23 At least 16 appear to have sat in only one Parl. This total does not include Broke, who may have sat in 1491 as well as 1460. Forthey was exceptional, in that he was a Member of as many as six Parliaments, of which the first four and the last two were consecutive. Friar, Nelme, Newton and Pullesdon were each elected to at least three and Clyve, Merston, Newdyk, Richard Oseney, Payn and Sharp to two. Like Forthey, five of these men (Clyve, Newdyk, Newton, Pullesdon and Sharp) had the experience of sitting in consecutive assemblies. Forthey’s career as an MP was compressed into a relatively short period of just over ten years while, by contrast, Payn was returned to his second and last Parliament nearly 30 years after the dissolution of his first.24 But if Broke did sit more than once, his parlty. career spanned an even longer period than Payn’s. Forthey began his parliamentary career under Henry V, as did Nelme, Merston and Friar. Richard Oseney is the only man among the 28 known to have sat in Henry IV’s reign, while just Payn certainly sat in that of Edward IV.25 But Broke may also fall into this latter category. There is no evidence that any of the MPs sat for another constituency. On several occasions the city returned two newcomers to Parliament: so far as is known, both of Worcester’s burgesses in the seven Parliaments of 1426, 1432, 1442, 1447, 1449 (Feb.), 1449 (Nov.) and 1460 were such novices. To some extent, the practice of electing lawyers would have tempered this inexperience, since no doubt members of the legal profession were better equipped than most to exercise their parliamentary duties effectively. In five of those seven assemblies, one of Worcester’s MPs was either definitely or very probably a lawyer.

During the first half of the reign, the formal elections of the MPs for Worcester occurred at a meeting of the shire court held in the city. The first two decades of the reign saw the continuance of a practice dating back to 1407, by which the names of the city’s representatives appeared on the same return as those of the knights of shire for Worcestershire. Likewise recorded are the names of the electors for both the city and the county, much more clearly distinguishable in some indentures than in others. In at least a couple of these combined indentures – those of 1425 and 1427 – the names of the MPs for the city are written in a different shade of ink and are clearly later additions. In spite of the appearance of a joint election by a common assembly for the county and city, it is likely that the citizens – who in the century before 1407 had customarily elected their representatives at a separate assembly – had already chosen their representatives when the shire court met. On the other hand, the later insertions on the indentures of 1425 and 1427 might suggest a delay in selecting the city’s MPs, or even the overthrowing of a previous decision. The method of making electoral returns introduced in 1442 was probably far closer to reality: from then on there was a separate indenture for the city, not always bearing the same date as that for the county. Of the surviving returns for the second half of the reign, there are more attestors named in that for the first Parliament of 1449 (41, including the two bailiffs) than for any other but, for want of evidence, it is impossible to prove a contested election to explain this apparently greater than usual participation. The indenture of 1442 describes the electors as ‘notabiles personae commorantes et residentes’ in Worcester, and the ordinances of 1466 were to attempt to ensure that they were indeed men of such standing, by applying to the city the rule restricting participation in county elections to 40s. freeholders. As already noted, the ordinances also provided for elections to occur publicly in the guildhall and for a majority of those present to choose the MPs. No doubt elections were never quite as open as appearances might suggest, and it is worth noting that by the mid sixteenth century the exercise of the franchise was restricted to members of the city’s common council.26 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 726; M. McKisack, Parlty. Repn. English Bors. 57; Dyer, 215.

If in practice dominated by the civic oligarchy, elections at Worcester were free in one important sense, for there is no clear evidence of outside interference by local landowners. It is nevertheless possible that the Beauchamp and Neville earls of Warwick, with whom several of the MPs had links, exercised a degree of influence through their hereditary offices of constable of Worcester castle and sheriff of Worcestershire. By virtue of the shrievalty, they were responsible for sending the electoral returns to the Chancery, meaning that they had the opportunity to alter the returns had they so wished. While Thomas Pachet’s links with Richard Neville, earl of Warwick, may have played a part in his return to the Parliament of 1460, his Membership of that assembly is by no means evidence that he was sympathetic to the Yorkist cause of which Neville was such a leading figure.27 The Commons 1386-1421, i. 727.

There is little evidence for the activities of the city’s MPs once elected. A commonplace book kept by John Porter records that he and his fellow burgess, Hugh Jolye, did not arrive at the venue for the Parliament of 1447, Bury St. Edmunds, until two days after that assembly had opened, although without explaining their tardiness.28 In fact, their election on 6 Feb. (C219/15/4) left them only four days to travel to Bury before Parliament assembled. It is possible that John Sharp and Richard Vely had a role in preparing or promoting a petition the Commons submitted to the Crown during the Parliament of 1427, since this concerned the activities of certain ‘Welshmen’ and others who were impeding the free transport of goods to Worcester, Gloucester, Bristol and other towns situated by the Severn. Similarly, the city’s MPs of 1429 and 1431 may have played some part in advancing like petitions to the Parliaments of those years.