The core of the Chicheley family’s Wimpole estate was acquired in 1428 by Henry Chichele, archbishop of Canterbury. Situated in south-west Cambridgeshire adjacent to the Great North Road, Wimpole enjoyed good access to Huntingdon, 15 miles to the north, and Cambridge, eight miles to the north-east. In 1436 the archbishop settled Wimpole on his great nephew, Henry Chicheley, whose lineal descendants had expanded their holdings by the early seventeenth century to include four of Wimpole’s six manors and all three manors in the neighbouring parish of Wendy.
Thomas Chicheley, father of this Member, served as sheriff in 1590-1 and was among the four most highly rated landowners in the county for the purposes of the royal loan of 1590.
Chicheley was educated at Gray’s Inn, but never entered university. Returned to Parliament as junior Member for Huntingdon in 1601, by which time he had attained his majority, he probably owed his election to his step-father, Thomas St. John, who lived a few miles east of Huntingdon at Hemingford.
In March 1614 Chicheley and Cutts sought election as knights of the shire for Cambridgeshire, but were opposed by Sir John Cotton† and Sir John Cage. During the subsequent campaign, letters in the names of Cutts and Chicheley were circulated urging copyholders, who were not entitled to vote, to turn out on their behalf. These letters infuriated Cage and Cotton who, on the eve of the election in Cambridge, persuaded the sheriff to issue a proclamation ordering all non-freeholders, of whom there were many in the town, to avoid the hustings. Cutts and Chicheley, too, sent word to the local inns and taverns that those not legally entitled to vote should return home. However, the following morning Cage and Cotton were trounced ‘by 500 at least’. Suspecting that many copyholders had simply ignored the sheriff’s order to vacate, they demanded a poll, but their request was refused as it was lodged some two hours after the election, by which time many genuine voters had returned home. Undeterred, Cotton and Cage subsequently petitioned the Commons, many of whose Members proved sympathetic. Edward Duncombe and Nicholas Fuller suspected that the letters requiring the ineligible copyholders to vote had been distributed with the consent of Cutts and Chicheley, while Thomas Martin thought there had been collusion between the sheriff and the two victorious candidates, and dismissed the former’s proclamation as a smokescreen. However, counsel for Cutts and Chicheley denied that his clients had acted improperly, and asserted that the letter addressed to the copyholders was the work of some over-zealous supporters. If anyone was guilty of sharp practice, he argued, it was Cotton and Cage, as they had waited until after many voters had departed before demanding a poll. This point proved decisive, as it persuaded the House to allow Cutts and Chicheley to retain their seats.
Chicheley took no recorded part in the 1614 Parliament until he had been assured of his place. He made no speeches, and was named to just two legislative committees. These were to consider an apparel bill, to which he was added at the request of Christopher Brooke, and a measure to confirm the grant of a Gloucestershire manor to Sir John Danvers* (31 May).