Whitchurch

Whitchurch, described by one visitor in 1679 as a ‘poor thoroughfare town’, lay at the junction of the roads between London and Andover, and between Newbury and Winchester, at a crossing of the River Test.1 HMC 13th Rep. ii. 286; VCH Hants, iv. 299-300. These roads gave Whitchurch its only remaining significance, despite the population of some 800 adults recorded in the Compton census.2 Compton Census, 83. However, it was sufficient to lend the town a degree of strategic importance during the civil war, when the area was hotly contested by royalist and parliamentarian forces. It is known, for example, that the royalist army encamped at Whitchurch on its way to the second battle of Newbury in October 1644.3 CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 57, 60; HMC Popham, 14.

Whitchurch was a borough by 1284, when it was a thriving market town. It was never incorporated, but was governed ‘time out of mind’ by a mayor (elected annually at the court leet) and burgesses. The dean and chapter of Winchester, to whom the manor was granted at the dissolution of the monasteries, subsequently alleged that a ratification of the original charter was obtained by deception, and it was therefore cancelled.4 VCH Hants, iv. 300-301; C66/1778, m.1. Whitchurch was enfranchised for the first time in 1586, with the right of election being held by the freeholders.5 VCH Hants, iv. 301. The electoral interest was effectively heritable with the estate at Freefolk, some four miles to the north, held from the 1610s by county grandee Sir Thomas Jervoise*, who dominated the affairs of the borough, and its parliamentary elections.

In the elections for both the Short and Long Parliaments in 1640 Sir Thomas, who had held the seat through the 1620s, was returned with his eldest son, Richard Jervoise*.6 C219/42ii/140; C219/43/154. At least in the autumn, familial dominance of the borough survived an apparent challenge from prominent courtiers. Some time before the end of September Robert Reade*, who lived less than ten miles away at Linkenholt and was secretary to his uncle Sir Francis Windebanke*, approached the king’s cousin James Stuart, 4th duke of Lennox for a seat somewhere. Richmond’s secretary assured him that ‘if you have a mind to Whitchurch, or any other place in Hampshire, they are yet free’; letters from the duke and from the lord treasurer, Lord Cottington (Sir Francis Cottington†), ‘will speed anywhere’ and ensure success.7 SP16/468, f. 196. On 18 October, however, Reade’s cousin Francis Reade of Faccombe informed him that Sir Thomas Jervoise had once again ‘engrossed’ both places at Whitchurch,

that town being (I know not for what cause) so much at his command that they dare not deny him. Had he been contented with one I had a promise of the other for myself or friend, but through his power there and my loathness to contest with him, I must let it alone.8 SP16/470, f. 33.

During the civil war both Sir Thomas and Richard Jervoise supported the parliamentarian cause, but the premature death of Richard in 1645 occasioned a vacancy. The election which followed after the Commons’ order for a new writ on 31 October saw the return of Thomas Hussey II*.9 CJ iv. 327b. It is not clear how much Hussey owed to the Jervoise interest, and how much to his own and to powerful backers at Westminster, but since marrying the widow of Richard Springham of Whitchurch in 1621, he had been building a considerable landed base in the region. The date of the poll is unknown, but Hussey had arrived in the Commons by 31 December.10 CJ iv. 393a.

Both Hussey and Sir Thomas Jervoise remained in Parliament after Pride’s Purge, ensuring that Whitchurch retained representation at Westminster during the Rump. The borough was disenfranchised by the terms of the Instrument of Government, however, and sent no representatives to either the 1654 or the 1656 Parliament. By the time traditional electoral patterns were restored for the Parliament of 1659, Sir Thomas had died and his heir was under age. The resulting power vacuum appears to have presented an opportunity for Jervoise’s kinsman and sometime associate in county administration Robert Wallop* to extend his already significant interest in the area and specifically to deploy the influence emanating from his possession of the manor of Hurstbourne Priors, directly to the west of Whitchurch.

Wallop, anticipating a third successive election to a county seat despite his perceived political disaffection, promoted the candidature at Whitchurch of his republican friends Sir Henry Vane II* and Robert Reynolds*. Reynolds, who had been solicitor-general under the Rump, was to oppose the recognition of Richard Cromwell* as protector once the Parliament opened, but it was Wallop’s support for Vane which gave most offence to the government. Wallop’s kinsman Edmund Ludlowe II* later claimed that Cromwell’s court was so enraged

that they had sent a menacing letter to him, which was subscribed by most justices of the peace for the county, to let him know, that they would oppose his election for the shire, if he persisted to recommend Sir Henry Vane to the choice of the people.

Wallop, however, ‘despising their threatenings, continued to assist Sir Henry Vane, and was chosen for the county in spite of them’.11 Ludlow, Mems. ii. 51. Writing to John Dunch* on 18 January 1659, three days before the Whitchurch election apparently took place, Richard Cromwell intimated that it might be subject to dispute, given Wallop’s tactics. It had been a campaign which neither ‘W[allop] nor the borough can justify, he taking a blank instrument from the place, and they for giving him such an unjustifiable power and liberty’. If there were to be a challenge to the election, Cromwell sought the return to the first place of Dunch’s brother-in-law John Pitman of Grately near Andover, an active local administrator, and probably a moderate parliamentarian and supporter of a national church.12 Vis. Hants 1686, 42; A. and O. Cromwell even backed an attempt to secure both seats, recommending either Dr Walter Walker, judge-advocate of the admiralty court, or William Withers of Manningdown, ‘an active man’ but ‘one that Wallop hath disobliged’.13 BL, RP 2573(ii). Yet such plans seem to have come to nothing, and following their return on 21 January, both Vane and Reynolds remained in the Commons for the duration of the Parliament.

In 1660 it was suggested that Wallop planned to use his influence at Whitchurch to secure seats for republicans Sir Arthur Hesilrige* and Henry Neville*, but in the end Wallop took the senior seat himself. Although he was disabled for his part in the trial of Charles I, he was replaced by his son Henry Wallop I† and the family’s interest endured.14 M. Coate, ‘William Morice and the Restoration of Charles II’, EHR xxxiii. 376; HP Commons 1660-1690. The second seat went to Giles Hungerford†, one of Sir Thomas Jervoise’s executors.