WHITHED, Richard I (1594-1663), of Norman Court, West Tytherley, Hants.

The Whithed family traced their ancestry back to the Conquest, and their control of the Hampshire estate centred on Norman Court to the early fifteenth century, when the manor was purchased by Robert Whithed. The family quickly established an elevated place among the local gentry, and this Whithed’s son served as sheriff later in the century.43Whitehead, Whitehead Fams. 10-17. Richard Whithed’s father Sir Henry Whithed†, who likewise held the shrievalty, was an assiduous local official, and the first member of the family to sit in Parliament, as knight of the shire in 1625, and as then burgess for Winchester (1626) and Stockbridge (1628).44HP Commons 1604-1629.

Richard Whithed, his local connections enhanced by his father’s second marriage in 1604 into the Norton family, received an extended education.45Whitehead, Whitehead Fams. 18; Hants RO, 5M50/2005; Al. Ox.; I. Temple admissions database; APC 1613-14, p. 585. Shortly after returning to England from travel on the continent, he too made a successful marriage.46Hants RO, 5M50/2007-10. By 1625 he was serving as a militia captain, although it is not clear if he was the Captain Whithed who served in the Cadiz expedition, and later at La Rochelle.47Add. 21922, f. 5; SP16/522, f. 21; SP16/116, f. 124v. Diverging from his father’s position, in 1626 he initially refused the Forced Loan, or rather joined with others who ‘desired to be excused for subscribing but voluntarily tendered the monies required of them’, although in his case the amount concerned was the relatively small sum of £3.48Hants RO, 44M69/G4/1/36/1, 9; 44M69/G4/1/42, 53. Another who took this stance was John Button I*, on whose family interest Whithed secured election as one of the Members for Lymington in 1628.49HP Commons 1604-1629.

Following the death of his father in 1629, Whithed succeeded to the position of influence which Sir Henry had occupied, and became an active member of the county bench.50PROB11/156/51; C181/4, f. 2v; C231/5, p. 19. In the 1630s he showed little sign of being anything other than a loyal servant of the crown. He compounded for his knighthood fine (£25) without objection in September 1630, and having been pricked as sheriff in 1635, appears to have been prepared to punish those who refused to pay Ship Money.51Add. 21922, f. 177; Cornwall RO, ME 2886; PC2/45, pp. 338, 351-2, 360; CSP Dom. 1635-6, p. 392; SP16/379, f. 238. In 1639 he was provided £20 towards the financing of the bishops’ war.52Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iii. 911.

As one of the most prominent members of the Hampshire gentry, Whithed secured a seat in the Short Parliament as a knight of the shire. He was named to the committee for privileges at the opening of the session (16 Apr.), but received only one further nomination, to a body appointed to consider a minor private matter (1 May).53CJ ii. 4a, 18b. Nevertheless, there is evidence that he took a keen interest in the reform of the wool trade, on which he made two recorded speeches, and in religious issues.54Aston’s Diary, 61, 99. He made a short speech during a debate on Convocation (24 Apr.), and another during a debate on altar policy (29 Apr.).55Aston’s Diary, 51, 92. Although diary entries offer only glimpses of Whithed’s views, it seems that although he was reluctant to grant extensive powers to Parliament in this matter, he was an advocate of further reformation, as indicated by his support for the decision to question Dr William Beale, the Arminian master of St John’s College, Cambridge (1 May).56Aston’s Diary, 114.

Whithed returned to Westminster in November 1640, once again as a knight of the shire. He quickly offered to loan the sum of £1,000 (21 Nov.) and seems to have been from the first an active Member.57Procs. LP i. 229, 232, 235. Many of the committee nominations he received concerned matters of parliamentary privilege, such as election disputes, or private business, which may or may not have been connected with affairs in his own county.58CJ ii. 62b, 85b, 93b, 100b, 103b, 160a, 164a-b, 423b; Harl. 163, f. 41; Harl. 477, f. 87. However, other nominations, such as to committees dealing with monopolies (19 Nov. 1640) and reform of the wool trade, posts, and agricultural land use, indicate that Whithed was recognized as among those who had an animus against royal policies and the behaviour of some leading courtiers.59CJ ii. 31a, 77b, 82a, 92b. He was teller in a division over the patent granted to Sir John Meldrum (16 Feb. 1641) and among those appointed to discuss with peers the trial of Thomas Wentworth†, 1st earl of Strafford (6 Mar.).60D’Ewes (N), 526; CJ ii. 98a.

Thus far Whithed’s position was similar not just to those MPs who later became parliamentarians but also to some who became ‘constitutional’ royalists. More distinctive were his views on ‘godly reformation’. In the first month of the Parliament he relayed information from a former under-sheriff of Hampshire, Robert Horwood, that Secretary Sir Francis Windebanke* ‘had countermanded him from prosecuting recusants’ (20 Nov.), and was named to the committee investigating a notorious papist, John James (27 Nov.).61Procs. LP i. 210-12, 214, 215, 217; CJ ii. 37b. Early in 1641 he was named to committees concerning allegations against William Piers, bishop of Bath and Wells (29 Jan.), the abolition of superstition and idolatry (13 Feb.), putting clergymen out of the commission of the peace (1 Mar.) and excluding them from temporal office (8 Mar.), and for abolishing pluralities (10 Mar.).62CJ ii. 75a, 84b, 94b, 99a, 100b. In the months that followed, Whithed was also appointed to committees discussing the propagation of the gospel (12 Apr.), the reform of ecclesiastical courts (27 Apr.), and the creation of new parishes, both in Hampshire and elsewhere.63CJ ii. 119a, 128b, 155a, 156a. In addition, he made at least one contribution to a debate on church lands, clarifying ‘that both sides agree that it is sacrilege to take those lands away, though formerly given to a superstitious use’ (12 May).64Procs. LP iv. 345. Later, in the spring of 1642, he was named to consider the forfeiture of the estates of the archbishop of York (22 Feb. 1642).65CJ ii. 448b. He also promoted a petition from the corporation of Basingstoke complaining about the attempt by their minister, Ambrose Webb, to prevent their lecturer, ‘a very able godly man’ called Mr Brocket, from preaching (12 Mar. 1642).66PJ ii. 31; Walker Revised, 191; CJ ii. 476.

This places Whithed among the most zealous reformers in the Commons, and he probably supported ‘root and branch’ church reform. That he also became one of those most committed to the continuation of the Parliament was apparent in the second half of 1641 and the early months of 1642. In the wake of the army plot, Whithed began to receive nominations connected to security. Added on 10 May 1641 to the committee for raising mariners for the defence of the kingdom, he was soon among those dealing with the strategically important town of Portsmouth and discussing the disbanding of the army.67CJ ii. 141b, 146a, 188b. On 13 May he sounded a warning note to offset a fairly up-beat report from Sir Philip Stapilton* on the parliamentary fact-finding deputation to Portsmouth by remarking that ‘he lived in the same county and that there were multitudes of papists who lived round about’ the town.68Procs. LP iv. 363. Six months later, having been appointed with Sir William Lewis* as a commissioner to disarm those who lived in Hampshire (28 Aug.), he reported to the Commons (2 Nov.).69D’Ewes (C), 68; An ordinance made the 28th day of August, 7. The same day, as news broke of rebellion in Ireland, he was named to the committee to discuss Irish affairs, and subsequently became involved in more general searches for arms.70CJ ii. 302a, 349b.

The attempted arrest of the Five Members brought security issues to the fore and divisions between the king and his opponents into sharper focus. Prominent in the records of the Commons, Whithed was named not just in connection with seeking out arms, or securing forts, castles, and gunpowder, but also to address more profound constitutional fall-out from the king’s actions. 71CJ ii. 375b, 387b, 476a. On 17 January 1642 he was among MPs who met with the Lords to discuss the privileges of Parliament, and later in the month was involved in the work of the committee for informations (or the Committee for Examinations as it would come to be known) and reported to the Commons his investigation into orders sent to the Cinque Ports for the arrest of the Five Members.72CJ ii. 384a, 401a; PJ ii. 208, 210, 214. Nominated to consider the captured correspondence of George Digby*, Lord Digby, (16 Feb.) and the punishment of those who refused to take the Protestation (16 Apr.), in the meantime he sponsored the Hampshire petition, presented to Parliament on 10 March, which endorsed (amongst other measures) the decision to remove bishops from the Upper House, and sought the removal of ‘popish lords’, the return of the king to London, and steps to guarantee the security of the country against both foreign and domestic enemies.73CJ ii. 437b, 530b; PJ ii. 23; LJ iv. 640.

From the spring of 1642 Whithed’s name appears less frequently in the proceedings of the Commons, probably because he was occupied with the execution of its orders in Hampshire. In the years that followed he became one of the most senior parliamentarians in the county, active in administration and as a colonel of forces raised in there.74HMC Portland, i. 131. However, he returned periodically to Westminster, where he played his part in advancing the national as well as the local war effort. He offered two horses for the defence.75PJ iii. 476. In June and July 1642 (as he recounted to fellow MPs), as a deputy lieutenant he put the Militia Ordinance into execution.76CJ ii. 647b; PJ ii. 394; iii. 158, 160; LJ v. 156b, 172. In August, having sought to ensure that supplies could not reach George Goring* at Portsmouth, he was active in the siege of the town, and in tandem with Sir William Lewis made his base there.77I.o.W. RO, OG/BB/463; Rushworth, Hist. Collns. iv. 683; SP28/4/48-9.

The degree of Whithed’s engagement with the local struggle may be gauged from his absence from the Journal between 1 July 1642 (when he took to the Lords a petition from Hampshire about the militia) and the spring of 1643, when he briefly re-appeared.78LJ v. 172a. Although he did make a solitary recorded appearance at the committee for Irish affairs (7 Apr.), three committee nominations in that window were all concerned in some way with the war: considering petitions from the Isle of Wight (15 Mar.) and the Merchant Adventurers (14 Apr.); conferring with the City about raising money (12 Apr.).79CJ iii. 1a, 41a, 44a; SP16/539/127, p. 14. On 18 April the Commons ordered that Hampshire receivers pay to Sir William Lewis, Robert Wallop* and Whithed £1,000 which they had advanced for maintaining the garrison at Portsmouth, and it was there that the last appears to have spent most of the succeeding five or six months.80CJ iii. 50b, 648a; iv. 98b; Harl. 165, ff. 146v, 198v; SP28/14/56; W. Prynne, A Vindication of Sir William Lewis (1647), 6-7 (E.397.14). On 3 May Whithed and Richard Norton* were appointed the commissioners to see that the ordinance for weekly assessment was implemented in Hampshire.81LJ vi. 29a.

In post, Whithed acquired a reputation as a somewhat ruthless operator. Determined to take action against royalists and delinquents, he was reported to have said he had been ‘at a great charge to build a cage at Portsmouth, where many Hampton birds should sing very suddenly’.82Godwin, Civil War in Hants, 97; HMC Portland, i. 131. In August he told the Speaker, William Lenthall*, that he had insufficient troops to secure Southampton, because it was ‘full of ill-affected who now show themselves’, while royalists commented on his ‘malice’.83Bodl. Tanner 62, f. 267; Mercurius Aulicus no. 32 (6-12 Aug. 1643), 437 (E.65.26). In early September Mercurius Aulicus noted that ‘this last week starved to death two prisoners in Portsmouth dungeon’; warned of their condition, Whithed had ‘denied to better the poor men’s condition’. When questioned, he was supposed to have asserted that such treatment ‘was an acceptable work to God’ and that he had covered his back ‘if the king have the better’, for he had ‘passed away my lands, and have put up sufficient money to maintain myself, and for my life, that’s sure enough; I have a friend at court will protect that’. Meanwhile, a sermon delivered by Whithed’s chaplain, one Tooker (probably John Tooker, vicar of Hambledon), referred to the defections to the royalist camp after a summer of defeats and called on God ‘to open the eyes of five lords who lately deserted him and his cause, and were gone to the king’.84Mercurius Aulicus no. 35 (27 Aug.-2 Sept. 1643), 482-3 (E.67.7). For his part, Whithed kept in touch by letter with his political masters in Parliament (14, 29 Sept.), and he and other activists were directed to go in person to Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, and to the lord general, Robert Devereux, 3rd earl of Essex, to put the case for ‘the importance of Portsmouth’ (28, 30 Oct.).85CJ iii. 240a, 293a, 294a; Add. 18778, ff. 42v, 57v, 77; Harl. 165, f. 202a.

Whithed was in the House on 1 November 1643 to take the Covenant, and three days later was named to the committee for establishing the Committee of Accounts, but his parliamentary service continued to be punctuated and shaped by military duties.86CJ iii. 297b, 302a. For six months there is no sign of him in the House, his absence being excused on 5 February 1644.87CJ iii. 389b. In April he had a major part in capturing Waltham House, but he was back at Westminster in May and early June.88Godwin, Civil War in Hants, 198; J. Vicars, Gods Arke overtopping the Worlds Waves (1645), 201, 214 (E.312.3). Perhaps as a result of discussions in the Committee of Both Kingdoms, to which he, Richard Norton and other county activists were summoned a few days earlier, on 9 May he was made chairman of the committee to the reform Hampshire’s military defences in the county.89CSP Dom. 1644, pp. 147-8; CJ iii. 486a-b. Five weeks later he presented the legislation for the establishment of the association of the counties of Kent, Surrey, Sussex and Hampshire (15 June), experience doubtless brought to bear when he was then nominated to discuss raising forces in neighbouring Wiltshire (17 June).90CJ iii. 531b. 532b; Harl. 166, ff. 58, 63v; LJ vi. 592b. Meanwhile, he and fellow activists secured an order for further sequestrations to pay for the Portsmouth garrison (3 June), although they were taken to task by the Committee of Both Kingdoms on the 26th for retaining their forces for local service when they were urgently needed elsewhere by Sir William Waller*.91LJ vi. 576a; CSP Dom. 1644, p. 280. Whited was also named to consider an ordinance prohibiting wool exports (10 June), as well as to investigate the conduct of Henry Grey*, 1st earl of Stamford, as commander in the west, and to advance the Committee of Accounts (1 June).92CJ iii. 489b, 519b, 523b. He offered glimpses of emerging political Presbyterianism. In a rare recorded speech (31 May), Whithed attacked Members’ tendency to ‘gape after offices’, revealing the perspective which subsequently led to the passing of the Self-Denying Ordinance.93Harl. 166, f. 67b.

Throughout this period Whithed was an active sequestrator of delinquents and a zealous member of the Hampshire committee.94CJ iii. 515a; Add. 24860, ff. 53, 65, 68, 72, 83, 134, 136, 139; HMC Portland, i. 413; Bodl. Nalson XIV, ff. 154-71. He surfaced only twice in the Journal during the second half of 1644, with a predictable nomination to the committee concerning military cognizance (15 July) and as having prompted an order for payment to the Portsmouth garrison (1 Oct.).95CJ iii. 562b, 648a. He was present at most of the siege of Basing House, and frustrated at its length, expressed his wish in a letter to the House in November that ‘we could find other fruits of it than it seems the affairs of the army will allow us’. He concluded that ‘our county is ruined by it, but we must submit our private to the public good’.96Harl. 166, f. 142a; Godwin, Civil War in Hants, 218, 229, 235, 239, 248. While not deflected from their determination to employ the forces he was engaged in recruiting to augment Waller’s forces elsewhere, the CBK responded by exhorting the county committee to assist Whithed and acknowledging that they had indeed ‘had so good testimony and experience of your readiness to serve the public’.97SP21/19, f. 147; CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 94, 141-2.

Early in 1645 Whithed was at least briefly in attendance at Westminster, leaving a deputy in command of his regiment as the Committee of Both Kingdoms resolved to dispatch it first to Poole and then (10 Jan.) to Portsmouth.98CSP Dom. 1644-5, pp. 234, 241, 244. On 28 January he was among those MPs summoned from the House to attend it on Hampshire business.99CJ iv. 33b. A few weeks later he was apparently present to participate in committees discussing recruitment for what became the New Model army (17 Feb.) and the fitting out of ships (21 Feb.).100CJ iv. 51a, 57a. Someone evidently reminded the Commons to reiterate orders for repayment of the outgoings incurred by Lewis, Wallop and Whithed in Hampshire (2 Apr.), but Whithed was not obviously active again in the House until June, presumably again preoccupied at Portsmouth.101CJ iv. 98b.

Granted the weekly allowance on 3 June, he was then regularly visible for two months.102CJ iv. 161a. Doubtless his primary concern was to ensure the passing of ordinances which would fully cover the needs of garrisons in his native county (7, 9 June): his final recorded action in the Journal during this spell was to take a (third) message on the subject to the Lords (31 July).103CJ iv. 166a, 168b, 169a, 225b; LJ vii. 420a, 510a, 518b. However, in the meantime he was also included on committees related to the London militia (10 July), the choice of Presbyterian elders (25 July) and the sale of delinquents’ estates (31 July), and on 26 July he took a message to the Lords about the relief of prisoners taken at Naseby.104CJ iv. 203a, 218a, 219b, 225a. More notably, he was named on 6 June to the committee for excise – giving him a potentially vital say in the funding of his military commitments – and on 1 July to the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs, which, departing from his previous record, he attended not only in July but on at least three occasions through August.105CSP Ire. 1633-1647, pp. 405, 407-9, 412.

Cumulatively, this implies that Whithed exercised a significantly greater influence behind the scenes than is suggested by his profile in the Journal. Equally, it offers hints of political as well as religious Presbyterianism, although Whithed’s frequent absences from London and his preoccupation with Hampshire hardly made him a core ‘party’ player at Westminster. It is probable that when he surfaced again in the Journal in December his priority was securing the authority for instructions to be given to the Hampshire and Wiltshire committees which he was involved drafting (23 Dec.), but it is conceivable that he followed Presbyterian inclinations on the committee which considered objections against lending money for Ireland (8 Dec.).106CJ iv. 368b, 383b; CSP Dom. 1645-7, p. 260. He was to attend at least two meetings of the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs (24 Feb., 7 Mar. 1646) before his next appearance in the Journal.107CSP Ire. 1633-1647, pp. 438, 440. This (9 Mar.) was as a teller with Sir Robert Pye I* against leading Independent Sir Arthur Hesilrige*; Whithed and Pye marshalled the narrowest of majorities for endorsing the (probably more lenient) fine to be imposed on Sussex royalist Sir John Caryll.108CJ iv. 471a. This was an isolated visible contribution to proceedings in the chamber, but once again he was around Westminster to attend the Star Committee of Irish Affairs meetings for some time afterwards.109CSP Ire. 1633-1647, pp. 440-1, 443.

In May and early June 1646 he was nominated to a trio of committees relating to the enumeration of scandalous offences, where he plausibly argued a stricter line than some other MPs.110CJ iv. 549a, 553b, 563a; CSP Ire. 1633-1647, pp. 452, 458. But he was then invisible in the Journal until 21 August, when he was given leave to go to Bath for ‘the recovery of his health’, and was not seen again until the end of October.111CJ iv. 650a. A flurry of committee appointments between 29 October and 9 January 1647 convey little of his attitude towards the factional divisions at Westminster, since they related to diverse matters – delinquents, the appointment of sheriffs, the establishment of a Durham constituency, the navy.112CJ iv. 708a, 709b, 710b; CJ v. 21b, 47a. Nevertheless, he clearly remained a Member of some account, being nominated to the committee to consider the disposal of the great seal (3 Nov. 1646) and was added to the committee for privileges (16 Dec.), while he was deputed to request the prominent Presbyterian divine, John Arrowsmith, to preach a fast sermon (30 Dec.).113CJ iv. 714a; v. 15a, 33b; ‘John Arrowsmith’, Oxford DNB.

Whithed played little perceptible part in the dramatic events at Westminster during 1647. He appeared again in the record very briefly as agitation threatened to overtake the New Model, being named to the committee to consider settling lands on Fairfax (11 May, on one view in anticipation of the army’s disbandment), securing an order that he and Norton write to assure the people of Portsmouth and Petersfield that the radical forces of Colonel Thomas Rainborowe* would be removed from the area (12 May) and attending the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs (13 May).114CJ v. 167a, 169a; CSP Ire. 1633-1647, p. 625. He was then presumably again present on 20 July, when he was nominated to consider the ordinance for the restoration of regional grandee Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke, as chancellor of the University of Oxford.115CJ v. 251b. But Whithed’s whereabouts during the Presbyterian coup which soon followed are unknown, and he was recorded as having been absent at the ‘call of the House’ on 9 October.116CJ v. 330a.

On 1 November ‘Colonel Whithed’ reappeared to be added to a committee to raise money for Ireland.117CJ v. 347b. Seemingly having suffered no loss of standing among his associates, on the same day he was a teller with Francis Rous* and against Hesilrige and Giles Grene* in a division over a clause on tithe payments in the propositions being drafted to send to the king, although he and Rous failed in what seems to have been an attempt to defend a nationally-supported ministry.118CJ v. 348a; LJ ix. 506b. Despite this set-back and another gap in committee appointments, he may have remained in London. On 27 December he was among those deputed to go to Hampshire to expedite the collection of assessments.119CJ v. 400b.

Perhaps after a prolonged stay in the county, he returned to view on 20 April 1648, amid pro-royalist riots in London, with a nomination to consider an ordinance punishing defaulters on musters, which was followed by another to discuss the settling of the militia (4 May).120CJ v. 538a, 550b. Two weeks later, with Richard Norton, he was a teller for the minority who wished to extend the bail of John Paulet†, 5th marquess of Winchester, the Catholic peer against whom they had been pitched at Basing House (18 May).121CJ v. 564a. While this division may have been driven more by local than by factional considerations, Whithed’s Presbyterian allegiance emerged clearly on 25 May, when with Sir Walter Erle* he was a teller for the majority in favour of a motion to give power to the Derby House Committee to grant commissions for raising military forces in the regions.122CJ v. 573b. A concern to accord maximum time and scope to negotiations with the king on the Isle of Wight was evident at his next appearances in the summer. On 14 August – the same day that he put in a by now rare attendance at the Star Chamber Committee of Irish Affairs – Whithed was a teller with one of its longstanding stalwarts, Robert Reynolds*, in an unsuccessful attempt to prevent an early calling of the House to review the proceedings of the peace commissioners.123CJ v. 671a; CSP Ire. 1647-60, p. 24. Three days later he again failed to marshal sufficient support, this time an attempt to block the placing of restrictions upon the men whom the king could request to attend him during the treaty.124CJ v. 674a. Whithed’s only further appearance in the Journal that year was on 9 October, when he was named to the committee considering raising £5,000 to guard to Parliament.125CJ vi. 47a. Regarded as a Presbyterian, he was probably among those excluded from the Commons at the army’s purge on 6 December.126A List of the Imprisoned and Secluded Members (1648, 669.f.13.62).

Although banished from Parliament, and apparently making no effort to return in the decade which followed, Whithed retained his position of influence within Hampshire. Perhaps too eminent to be ignored, and too well-connected and too forthright in his commitment to reformed religion to be suspect, he was prepared to accommodate to the new regime. He not only continued to serve on local commissions – notably during the insurrection-troubled year of 1655 – but was also appointed a justice of the peace in Wiltshire, although there is no sign of him at quarter sessions there.127A. and O.; The Names of the Justices (1650), 49 (E.1238.4); CSP Dom. 1655, p. 94; A Perfect List (1660), 49; C193/13/3, f. 68v; C193/13/4, f. 108v; C193/13/5, f. 115v; Stowe 577, f. 57v; Wilts. RO, A1/60/1, 2. He cemented his social contacts, marrying his eldest son, Henry Whithed†, in 1652 to one of the daughters of his long-standing friend Richard Norton*, and taking advantage of that connection to marry his daughter Frances the following year to one-time fellow advocate of the Newport treaty, Nathaniel Fiennes I* (brother of Norton’s daughter-in-law).128Hants RO, 5M50/380-2, 2013-7, 2081-2.

Whithed returned to Parliament upon the readmission of the secluded Members in February 1660, and on 1 March was nominated as a commissioner for the custody of the New Forest.129CJ vii. 856b. He is reported to have been in the chamber on 16 March, the day on which the Long Parliament was finally dissolved.130Grand Memorandum (1660, 669.f.24.37).

After the Restoration, Whithed played little significant part in either local or national affairs. As an aging former parliamentarian of some notoriety, any expectation of obtaining a seat in Parliament would have been slim, and appointments to local commissions soon dried up. Although he was still active on the corporation of Lymington in 1662, he was removed in the purge of the boroughs.131Hants RO, 27M74/DBC2, f. 55v; Portsmouth Recs. ed. East, 169. Whithed died in 1664, and was buried in the parish church of West Tytherley, ‘without vain pomp of superfluity’. His cash bequests amounted to over £5,000, and the will was overseen by Nathaniel Fiennes I, John Button I, and John Bulkeley*. The estate passed to his heir, Henry Whithed†, who represented Portsmouth in 1660 and Stockbridge in 1679 and 1680. A younger son, Richard Whithed II*, to whom Whithed left £1,500 (together with the fee farm rent of Buckholt), had sat in Richard Cromwell’s Parliament of 1659.132PROB11/313/504; HP Commons 1660-1690.