Whitchurch

Whitchurch was described by the antiquarian Thomas Baskerville in the later seventeenth century as a ‘poor thoroughfare town’ in a region devoted mainly to sheep grazing and the clothing industry. HMC Portland, ii. 286. The borough was owned by the dean and chapter of Winchester, but governed by a court leet presided over by an annually elected mayor and bailiff. VCH Hants, iv. 299-304. Members were first returned to Parliament in 1584, and the franchise rested in the freemen. Elections during this period were dominated by Sir Richard Paulet of nearby Freefolk and his successors. Without exception all those returned were puritan in sympathy. The freeholders seem to have expected little activity from their representatives, none of whom were either notable speechmakers or were appointed to more than a handful of committees. There is no evidence that any of the town’s MPs received wages.

In 1604 Paulet was returned in first place, with Thomas Brooke, a lawyer who was the only townsman to represent Whitchurch in the period. The two had long been adversaries, quarrelling over lands and coppices which lay between Freefolk and Whitchurch, but they may both have helped the town to procure a new charter of incorporation in 1608. Brooke headed the list of 12 aldermen named in the charter, while Paulet wrote to the chancellor of the Exchequer, Sir Julius Caesar*, claiming that the town was worthy of incorporation, having ‘yielded to the Crown by means of their trade of clothing great benefit yearly’. Hants RO, 44M69/F2/12/2, 7. The charter was granted, only to be cancelled after the dean and chapter alleged it had been obtained by deception. Brit. Bor. Charters ed. M. Weinbaum, 50; C66/1778/1.

In the wake of this confrontation a new dean, Thomas Morton, future bishop of Chester, Oxford DNB sub Morton, Thomas. tried to exercise influence over the borough’s election in 1614, as Thomas Cheke I*, steward to the dean and chapter, secured letters of recommendation for his son and namesake. Paulet, however, was eager to consolidate his interest. Hants RO, 44M69/F2/11/58. On 1 Mar. 1614 the vicar reported to Paulet that the voters’ loyalties were divided. ‘Many’, he noted, ‘were fearful of their landlord Mr. Dean (who wrote his letter to them for young Mr. Cheek)’, but around half had promised to support Paulet regardless. Hants RO, 44M69/G2/41. Probably Cheke’s candidature was not pressed, as he found another opening. Consequently, Paulet was re-elected, together with Sir Edward Barrett, a courtier who owned property in Hampshire. In total Paulet had spent 20s. towards the election, including an unspecified fee for the return of the indenture. Hants RO, 44M69/E4/28, f. 39v.

Paulet died not long after the end of the Addled Parliament, leaving Freefolk to his son-in-law Sir Thomas Jervoise. At the next election in 1620 Jervoise asserted a claim to the first seat, while the second went to Sir Robert Oxenbridge II, of Hurstbourne Priors, two miles west of the town. Jervoise was returned for the borough at every subsequent election until his death in 1654. Except in 1624, when he gave way to his wife’s kinsman and fellow puritan Sir Henry Wallop, he always took the senior seat. Hants RO, 44M69/G2/47. Jervoise’s accounts reveal that his electoral expenses were modest: he disbursed £5 14s. 3d. on the ‘entertainment’ of a score of voters in 1624. Hants RO, 44M69/G2/46, E6/140; D. Hirst, Representatives of the People?, 119. Oxenbridge took second place in 1625 and 1626, but thereafter his health deteriorated, and in 1628 Jervoise was paired with another Hampshire landowner, Sir John Jephson of Froyle.