A brother of the prominent London mercer John Stocton, William Stocton was probably a clothier or wool merchant, even though he was considered a ‘gentleman’ by the end of his life.
Outside Wycombe, the Stoctons were involved in county affairs, in so far as the MP or his father attested the return of the knights of the shire for Buckinghamshire on at least three occasions in the late 1420s and early 1430s, including the controversial election of 1429. At a county court held at Aylesbury on 31 Aug. that year William Stocton was among those who witnessed the return of John Hampden II* and Andrew Sperlyng* to the Parliament called for the following 22 Sept., but the sheriff Sir Thomas Waweton* sent into Chancery a false indenture recording that Sir John Cheyne I* and Walter Strickland I* were the men elected. A judicial commission subsequently established that the election of Hampden and Sperlyng should have held good, although by then the Parliament was over.
So far as the evidence goes, the MP was particularly active in his latter years, when he himself sat in two consecutive Parliaments.
In his will, dated 24 Aug. 1452 and proved on 8 Sept. 1454,
It is unlikely that Stocton was survived by any children since none is mentioned in his will. His widow had found a new husband in Thomas Rogers† by 1457, when she and Rogers made a formal release of four messuages and other lands at Wycombe to the MP’s brother John Stocton, and to John’s feoffees and heirs.
In the mid or late 1490s the mayor and burgesses of Wycombe filed a Chancery bill to complain that the work on the church had yet to begin. According to the bill, they had continually requested Sir John’s executors to perform the will although it was not until after the deaths of her co-executors that the conscience-stricken Elizabeth had tried to rectify the situation. She had done so by conveying lands worth £20 p.a. which she had held in Wycombe and elsewhere in Buckinghamshire to Henry VII’s secretary, Robert Sherborn, on the understanding that he would take responsibility for the project. In the event, Sherborn had neglected to act, meaning that the chancel and its adjoining side chapels had fallen into a state of near collapse. Protesting that the church’s parishioners could not themselves afford to pay for the urgently needed work, they asked that Sherborn might answer for his neglect in the Chancery. Presumably the bill achieved its aim, for around the turn of the century new arcades were inserted in the walls between the chancel and its chapels and the southern chapel was practically rebuilt.
