The Sherwill family can be traced in Plymouth from at least the 1540s, one member holding a minor local office there during Elizabeth’s reign.
In 1611 the French Company of London secured a monopoly over trade with France. Like many Devon merchants, Sherwill was obliged to join the Company in order to continue trading, but its charter was soon regarded as a major grievance in Plymouth. At about the same time, local protests mounted against the corrupt practices of the port’s customs officers, Sherwill himself informing Bagg that, as a shipowner, ‘he would rather pay £6 unto the king for custom, if it were due unto His Majesty, than 6d. unto any man by way of extortion or oppression’. In January 1613 Sherwill was sent to London to assist with lawsuits against the customs officials and the French Company. Barely a year later, he was dispatched back to the capital as the borough’s junior Member of Parliament.
Sherwill’s name caused some confusion at Westminster, and in the course of his Commons’ career he was recorded by clerks and diarists as Sherwin, Sherwood, Sherley and, very occasionally, Shervile. As the last of these variants was also routinely applied to his parliamentary colleague Henry Sherfield, it can be difficult to distinguish between the two men.
Bagg resigned as comptroller of the Plymouth customs in May 1614, but the Exchequer case against him dragged on into the autumn. Sherwill continued to deal with this, and he was also employed by the Plymouth corporation when its charter was renewed towards the end of the year. In 1617 he returned to London, this time in search of legal advice and records after the duchy of Cornwall claimed jurisdiction over Sutton Pool, the inner portion of Plymouth’s harbour.
During the 1621 Parliament Sherwill again made little mark on proceedings. Although not named in person to any committees, he was entitled as a port town burgess to attend the legislative committee concerned with extortionate customs officials (7 May). He was presumably the ‘Mr. Sherwin’ who came forward the following day as a witness to the unseemly brawl between Clement Coke* and Sir Charles Morrison*. During the second sitting he spoke against the bill to boost English exports, which it was feared would penalize West Country ports (22 November). Conversely, he supported the bill for freer fishing in America, which targeted the monopolistic claims of the New England Company, led by Sir Ferdinando Gorges†, captain of Plymouth fort. During the measure’s third reading, he argued against a proviso to protect settlers in Newfoundland, and warned that ‘in taking care for plantation, let us not displant England’.
Sherwill’s profile during the 1624 Parliament was somewhat higher. On 24 Feb. he ‘alleged one main cause of the decay of trade was the burthen and pressure of the impositions, which would not suffer it to rise or grow again’. Two days later he called for a general inquiry into the impact of impositions and ‘the restraint of trading’, explaining in detail how the Merchant Adventurers’ privileges impeded Devon’s cloth trade. He was even more critical of the New England Company, informing the House on 27 Feb. that government proclamations and Admiralty warrants were now being used to bar independent fishing voyages. On 15 Mar. he disputed Sir George Chudleigh’s claim that English fishermen were sabotaging New England settlements by supplying guns to American Indians, but conceded that the French might be doing this. He was named the same day to the committee for the freer fishing bill, and attended five of its seven meetings.
Sherwill set off in early May 1625 to attend the opening of the first Caroline Parliament, only to turn back after hearing at Exeter that it had been prorogued until the end of that month. As he received 72 days’ wages for the first sitting, he must have been in London in time for the second prorogation on 31 May.
Back at Westminster for the 1626 Parliament, Sherwill retained his interest in trade issues, proposing on 15 Feb. that a further petition against the new imposition on wines should be discussed at the same time as the Tunnage and Poundage bill. In the event, he was named five days later to the committee set up to consider the imposition alone. He was also appointed to legislative committees concerned with the preservation of salmon stocks, and the naturalization of a London merchant’s son (27 Feb., 1 June).
Sherwill’s hostile attitude to Buckingham stemmed primarily from the prevailing naval crisis, but it may also have been shaped by an incident, recorded several decades later, in which he allegedly rebuffed an attempt by the duke to secure a seat at Plymouth for one of his followers at Court. The dating of this supposed event is unclear, but it fits with Buckingham’s known efforts in the late 1620s to obtain seats in West Country boroughs. It should also be considered alongside another anecdote concerning Sherwill’s third term as mayor, in 1626-7, during which time he is said to have faced down publicly the duke’s client, (Sir) James Bagg II*, the son of his old enemy, for swearing profanely before the Mayor’s Court.
The 1628 Parliament opened on 17 Mar., but Sherwill did not set out for London until 25 Apr., perhaps because of the prevailing disorder in Plymouth caused by the soldiers billeted there after the Ré expedition.
Sherwill made little impact on the 1629 session, but on 3 Feb. he was added to the committee to consider the case of John Rolle*, who had had merchandise seized for non-payment of Tunnage and Poundage. He was also appointed to consider the dangers of allowing ordnance exports to Spain, to examine a further petition about the foreign posts dispute, and to scrutinize the bill for increase of trade (26 Jan., 9 and 11 February).
Sherwill drew up his will on 17 Mar. 1630, expressing his ‘sure and undoubted confidence’ of salvation. His lands in Plymouth and elsewhere had already been conveyed in trust to his executors, namely his brother Nicholas, his two sons-in-law, and his friend Matthias Nichols, the town preacher. His charitable bequests included an £8 annuity to the orphanage, and gifts of £1 to 20 poor but industrious artificers. He also provided a £5 allowance for 24 years to enable Plymouth’s corporation to maintain its store of gunpowder. To his nephews and nieces he left divinity books, in token of his ‘love and desire of their spiritual growth and comfort’. Already disappointed in his feckless eldest son, he bequeathed his two younger sons £100 each, with which to set up in trade, providing that they proved themselves thrifty and industrious. If all three of them failed to prove their worth, Sherwill’s estate was to be divided between his three daughters, with his sons receiving much reduced annuities. He added a codicil on 18 July 1631 to discourage his heir from disputing the will, and died a few weeks later. In his funeral sermon, preached on 16 Aug. by Alexander Grosse, a local puritan lecturer, Sherwill was described as ‘a careful watchman over this town and people, ... towards God’s people kind, loving and amiable, ... in his conference and communication grave, wise, holy, full of heavenly discourse’. No later member of his family is known to have entered Parliament.