Herefordshire

Herefordshire is a county of strong geographical contrasts. Its central lowland plain is bounded to the west by the Black Mountains, ‘an immediate background to much of its landscape’; to the east by the Malvern Hills; and to the south by the Forest of Dean. A.G. Bradley, Herefs. 5. Its political geography resembled that of its northern neighbour, Shropshire, from which, in contrast to its other neighbours, it was not divided by physical boundaries (aside from the not very formidable one of the river Teme). For the bulk of the period under review here, the same three great lay lords had estates enough in the two counties to exert influence, potentially at least, over their parliamentary representation. Chief among them was Richard, duke of York (b.1411), who in 1425, as a minor, succeeded to the great inheritance of his uncle Edmund, the last Mortimer earl of March. As lord of the marcher lordship of Wigmore, he was the dominant landholder in the north-west of Herefordshire, and his local influence was augmented by even more considerable holdings in the immediate vicinity of the county. His castle of Ludlow lay just across the county’s northern border, and down the western border he held the marcher lordships of Clifford and Ewyas Lacy. For the Mortimer estates: CIPM, xxii. 510-12. Another of the principal marcher lords, Humphrey Stafford, earl of Stafford (and, from 1444, duke of Buckingham), had only attenuated interests in Herefordshire itself, but as lord of the former Bohun lordships of Brecon, Huntington and Hay, he was, like York, a considerable landholder along the county’s western border. C. Rawcliffe, Staffords, 193. The third potential parliamentary patron was John, Lord Talbot and, from 1442, earl of Shrewsbury, who, although his holdings were much more extensive in Shropshire, had an important estate in south Herefordshire around his castle of Goodrich. A.J. Pollard, ‘The Talbots’ (Bristol Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1968), 411, 415. Yet, although these lords had extensive landholdings in the county and its neighbourhood, none were resident there and each had very significant interests, not only landed but also political and military, elsewhere. Herefordshire was thus, again like Shropshire, a county of strong but largely absentee lay lordship. The only resident peer, Richard, Lord Grey of Wilton, was of no greater wealth than the county’s leading gentry. CP, vi. 178-80; H.L. Gray, ‘Incomes from Land in Eng. in 1436’, EHR, xlix. 618.

The Crown is to be added to potential baronial influence on Herefordshire’s representation. The administration of the southern parts of the principality of Wales provided employment for the more ambitious of Herefordshire’s gentry, as did the duchy of Lancaster lordship of Monmouth on the county’s south-western border. The final potential influence in the county’s representation was successive bishops of Hereford. In the latter part of the period that influence appears to have been in abeyance. Richard Beauchamp and Reynold Boulers, the bishops between 1448 and 1453, served too briefly to establish themselves in the diocese, and John Stanbury, who succeeded Boulers in 1453, was largely kept from Hereford by his duties as Henry VI’s confessor. In the earlier part of the period, however, the bishop was the scholarly Thomas Spofford. He may have been a somewhat reluctant bishop, promoted to the see from the abbacy of the Benedictine abbey of St. Mary’s, York, in 1421, to which abbey he retired in 1448, but he was a committed and resident one. Oxf. DNB, ‘Spofford, Thomas’.

Although in the context of lay lordship there were strong parallels between Herefordshire and Shropshire, in another regard there was a puzzling difference between the two counties. Shropshire was much the larger of the two and, although a poorer county measured per acre than Herefordshire, its taxable wealth, under the terms of the subsidy of 1450-1, was only a little less, both counties appearing among the poorest counties. S.J. Payling, ‘County Parlty. Elections’, Parlty. Hist. xviii. 258. Yet Shropshire appears to have had a much more attenuated gentry class. When, in 1434, commissioners listed all those in the county of sufficient standing to be required to take the parliamentary oath not to maintain peace-breakers, only 45 names were listed in Shropshire. The list produced by the Herefordshire commissioners presents a very different picture: it names Grey of Wilton as a resident peer, five knights (to whom is to be added Sir John Skydmore as one of the commissioners), 48 esquires (to whom is to be added John Russell as another of the commissioners), and 126 others, of whom about 40 were residents of the county’s two parliamentary boroughs, Hereford and Leominster. CPR, 1429-36, pp. 376-8, 408. No doubt this contrast is to be explained largely in terms of how the commissioners interpreted their task, but it tallies with other evidence that suggests that the Herefordshire gentry were both more numerous and prosperous than is implied by the county’s wealth.

Another feature of the county’s history in this period was the level of disorder. In the 1450s a group of the gentry, closely identified with the duke of York and headed by Sir William Herbert and (Sir) Walter Devereux I, brought widespread disorder to the county, most notably in March 1456 when they unlawfully hanged six citizens of Hereford whom they blamed for the death of one of Herbert’s kinsmen. Yet the disorders in the county were not simply a function of the political violence of the 1450s, for even in more benign conditions, as witnessed by the parliamentary petitions cited above, there was a higher index of disorder than in most shires. The troubles of the 1450s had a parallel in the late 1410s and early 1420s, most notably in the private war waged by Abrahall against his erstwhile lord, Lord Talbot. The disturbances were so serious that the local inhabitants presented several bills to the Commons in the 1423 Parliament complaining of the oppressions of both men. A. Herbert, ‘Herefs. 1413-61’, in Patronage, Crown and Provinces ed. Griffiths, 103-22.

Violence of another sort came to Herefordshire at the end of the period. The campaigns of the civil war of 1459-61 touched the county on two occasions. In the autumn of 1459 the royalist army passed through on its way from Worcester to its successful confrontation with the Yorkist army at Ludlow. Indeed, it was when the King was at Leominster on 9 Oct. that he issued writs of summons for a Parliament to meet at Coventry. Later, in February 1461 a Yorkist army, commanded by York’s son, the future Edward IV, mustered outside Hereford, and marched north to defeat a Lancastrian army, recently landed in Wales, at Mortimer’s Cross, a few miles north of Leominster. A. Goodman, Wars of the Roses, 29-31, 49; R.A. Griffiths, Hen. VI, 817-23, 871-2.

The MPs for Herefordshire are known for 21 of the 22 Parliaments of Henry VI’s reign. Returns survive for 19 of these Parliaments, and the names of the MPs for the Parliaments of 1439 and 1445 are known from enrolled tax commissions. CFR, xvii. 139, 324. These 42 known seats were filled by 18 individuals, who between them were elected for the county on 56 occasions. Only Sir John Barre, who represented Gloucestershire after his second election for Herefordshire, and John Abrahall, MP for Hereford nearly 20 years before his election for the county, were ever elected for other constituencies.

As in the previous period (1386-1421), there was a marked continuity in the county’s representation. Single returns were infrequent – only six of the MPs are recorded as representing the county just once – and generally owed something to special circumstances. Walter Devereux II and Sir William Herbert would no doubt have represented the county again in the 1460s had they not been promoted to the peerage by Edward IV in 1461. Kynard de la Bere was deprived by premature death of further opportunities, and the other three – Thomas Bromwich and the two Walwyns – were the least important men to represent the county in Henry VI’s reign. At the other extreme, one MP had an exceptional parliamentary career: John Russell I not only represented Herefordshire on a remarkable 13 occasions but also served as Speaker in the Parliaments of 1423 and 1432. Such was the continuity in Herefordshire’s representation that only 12 of the 42 seats were taken by apparent parliamentary novices. In 12 out of 21 Parliaments the county was represented by two experienced MPs, and in just three – 1435, 1445 and 1460 – by two novices (indeed, to only six out of 49 Parliaments from 1386 to 1460 did the county return two such). Immediate re-election was, therefore, common: there were ten known instances in the earlier period and the same in Henry VI’s reign.

Continuity in representation was matched by a high degree of insularity in the choice of representatives. Nearly all the 18 MPs came from families established in Herefordshire for at least a generation, although this bald statement conceals a range of origins. Several, as one would expect, were the senior representatives of leading county families. The best born of them were the two Devereuxs, direct descendants of Sir William Devereux of Lyonshall, who had received a writ of personal summons to the Parliament of 1299, and near-kinsmen of John, Lord Devereux, steward of the royal household from 1388 until his death in 1393. Next in importance were Barre, de la Bere, de la Hay, Oldcastle, the younger Skydemore and Whitney, all of whom inherited significant gentry estates in the county. Others were born into families of the same rank, but had not inherited their family’s lands: de la Mare was the illegitimate representative of a distinguished Herefordshire family that had failed in the legitimate male line; Bromwich came into an inheritance that had been largely dissipated; and the two Walwyns were younger sons. Abrahall, the elder Skydemore and Fitzharry hailed from families of lesser rank who advanced themselves through their own efforts. Only three of Herefordshire’s MPs traced their origins to outside the county. Both Merbury, from a Cheshire family, and Russell, an illegitimate representative of a prominent Worcestershire family, acquired their stake in Herefordshire by marriage; and Herbert, son of a Welsh knight, purchased a modest estate in the county in the early 1450s.

In these circumstances, it is not surprising that there was a strong dynastic element in the county’s representation. As many as 11 of the 18 MPs came from families that had provided the county with an MP in a previous generation or generations. In addition, Russell was the son of a Worcestershire MP and de la Hay was probably descended from an early Hereford MP. Only Herbert and Merbury (who hailed from areas without parliamentary representation), Abrahall and the two Skydemores came from families apparently new to the Commons.

The antiquity of many of the families that represented Herefordshire helps explain why its MPs were, as a group, richer than might have been expected. The county was not a wealthy one, but most of its MPs had incomes above £40 p.a., the level set for distraint. The richest of them was Walter Devereux II, whose substantial patrimony was supplemented by the lands of his wife, the Ferrers of Chartley heiress. When he sat for the county in 1460 his income was over £300 p.a. and would have been significantly greater but for the jointure interest in the Ferrers lands of his mother-in-law. Barre, through inheritance and profitable marriages, and Merbury, who had royal annuities worth about £200 when he was first elected for the county, were almost as rich. Not far behind them were Herbert, Walter Devereux I and the younger Skydemore, whose maternal inheritance made him richer than his father had been. All three were certainly worth comfortably above £100 p.a. when they represented the county. Of the others, most can be confidently said to have had annual incomes of between £40 and £100. Four of them – de la Hay, de la Mare, Russell and Abrahall – were distrained to take up the rank of knighthood, and Oldcastle was assessed at £40 p.a. in the subsidy of 1451. The elder Skydemore and Whitney, both knights, were certainly worth more than this. Of the remaining five, de la Bere was heir to one of Herefordshire’s principal gentry inheritances but did not live to inherit. All he had when he represented the county was the lands settled on him at marriage, probably worth about £20 p.a. Fitzharry was heir-presumptive of his elder brother, Richard, who was distrained in 1439 and assessed on an income of £40 p.a. in 1451. Richard’s lands had come to him before he last represented the county in 1459 (by which time he had added the landed interest of a widow), but his income was probably largely derived from the fees of a lawyer when he first sat in the Commons. Both de la Bere and Fitzharry had expectations when they began their parliamentary careers, and are to be accounted more substantial figures than the three remaining MPs. Both Bromwich and Makelin Walwyn were assessed at only £10 p.a in 1451, although in both cases this is likely to be an underestimate. The final MP, William Walwyn, was even less well off, assessed at only £6 p.a. E179/117/64. Over all, given the comparative poverty of Herefordshire, its MPs were prosperous men, and one of them, although not until after the end of his single Parliament, went on to become one of the richest men in the country. Herbert, who benefited hugely from Edward IV’s patronage, was worth some £3,000 p.a. at the time of his execution in 1469.

In view of the wealth of some of Herefordshire’s MPs it is not surprising to find that they held lands outside the county. Reckoning their landholdings at their most extensive during their careers in the Commons, but discounting any acquisitions made subsequently, ten of the 18 MPs are known to have held lands elsewhere, either in their own right or in that of their wives. Merbury and Walter Devereux I, largely due to the Crophill inheritance in the Midlands which the former held in right of his wife and which descended to the latter in 1438, held lands in eight and seven other English counties respectively. Barre held property in six other English and one Welsh county, and Walter Devereux II in four other English counties and London. Of these external landholdings, Barre’s in Hertfordshire and those of Devereux II in Staffordshire were particularly significant, matching their Herefordshire holdings in importance. These four men had widespread lands, but the external holdings of the other MPs tended to be restricted to the neighbouring counties of Shropshire to the north and Gloucestershire to the south. Abrahall and de la Mare each had lands in both these counties, and Oldcastle and Russell had property in Gloucestershire. Only Herbert had significant landholdings in Wales, inheriting a substantial estate in Monmouthshire and Glamorgan.

Yet although several of the MPs had lands external to Herefordshire, within the shire the MPs were drawn from a comparatively restricted area. The northern third of the county was entirely unrepresented, as, excepting the election of Makelin Walwyn in 1453, was the eastern third. This very marked bias to the south and west is equally apparent in the earlier period, and probably reflects, in part, an imbalance in the distribution of the homes of the leading families. G. Dodd, ‘Crown, Magnates and Gentry: The English Parliament, 1369-1421’ (York Univ. D.Phil. thesis, 1998), 324. Yet even though the MPs were drawn from a relatively confined part of the county, only in 1435 were two very near neighbours elected: Walter Devereux I of Weobley was returned with de la Bere of Kinnersley, only about four miles away.

The MPs as a group were not only drawn from a restricted area, they were also more closely related than was the case with the representatives of most other shires. Among the 18 were two pairs of fathers and sons (of the families of Devereux and Skydemore), a pair of brothers (the Walwyns), three pairs of brothers-in-law (the younger Skydemore and Fitzharry, Herbert and Walter Devereux II, Barre and de la Bere), and either two or three pairs of father-in-law and son-in-law (Walter Devereux I and Herbert, Merbury and Walter Devereux II and perhaps also Whitney and Abrahall). On two occasions – to the Parliaments of 1449 (Feb.) and 1460 – the county returned two brothers-in-law together. Indeed, it is easy to trace pedigrees that, within near degrees of kinship, included several of the 18 MPs. Most extensive are the connexions that can be traced from the elder Devereux, Herbert’s father-in-law. His mother was a kinswoman of Thomas Bromwich; Merbury was not only his father-in-law but also the husband of his paternal grandmother; and his sister Elizabeth was the wife of Richard Walwyn, the elder brother of Makelin and William.

Of the 18 MPs, nine are recorded as serving as sheriff of Herefordshire on at least one occasion, with six of them representing the county in Parliament before they acted as its sheriff. In comparison with the earlier period, when 19 of the county’s 25 MPs served as its sheriff, this marks a decline in the level of overlap between the two offices. Yet the marked change came not in the pattern of election to Parliament but rather in that of appointment to the shrievalty, for, remarkably, during Henry VI’s reign the shrievalty of Herefordshire was filled for as many as 12 terms by men whose main landed interests lay elsewhere. Sir John Pauncefoot, Guy Whittington and Thomas Mille*, all of whom represented Glos. as MPs, together served four terms; the lawyer, Walter Skulle*, MP for Worcs., three times; William Lucy of Charlecote (Warws.), twice; and (Sir) William Catesby, Sir William Lucy*, and (Sir) John Seymour I* once each. As a result, of the 26 men named to the office during the reign as many as eight served as MPs for other counties (only one of whom, Barre, also represented Herefordshire) compared with nine for Herefordshire. Either the county’s reputation for lawlessness prompted the Crown, when it could, to look elsewhere for the county’s sheriffs, or, more probably, the leading resident gentry had become more reluctant to take the office in their own locality.

This change in the pattern of appointment to the shrievalty is reflected in a decline in the number of the county’s seats taken by its former sheriffs. Of the 12 seats between 1422 and 1429, as many as 11 were so taken, compared with only four of 12 in the 1430s and two of 18 in the remainder of the period. None the less, there were several instances of a close correlation between parliamentary service and appointment to the shrievalty. On five occasions in Henry VI’s reign the sheriff was pricked from the MPs who had represented the county in the immediately preceding Parliament, that is, Merbury in 1426, de la Mare in 1428, Walter Devereux I in 1447, the elder Skydemore in 1430 and the younger one in 1449. It is also worth noting in this context that Thomas Mille in 1435 and Barre in 1450 were appointed as sheriffs of Herefs. while representing Glos. in Parliament. Merbury’s parliamentary career is particularly notable in this respect: he served seven terms as sheriff, and in the case of three of these appointments (1419 and 1422 in addition to 1426) he had been a Herefordshire MP in the preceding Parliament.

In regard to the escheatorship, there was no great difference between the two periods, for that office did not see the same infiltration of outsiders. In the earlier period, 12 of the 25 MPs served as escheators, compared with nine of 18 in the later. Of these nine, six served their first terms as escheator before they first sat in Parliament, and it is thus not surprising that as many as half of the county’s seats were taken by its former escheators. Again, however, as in the case of the shrievalty, there was a decline in this proportion as the period progressed, from nine out of 12 seats between 1422 and 1429 to six of 18 from 1442 to 1460.

For the other major office of county administration, that of j.p., however, there was a difference between the two periods, almost as marked as that in respect of the shrievalty but in the direction of greater rather than lesser overlap with the county’s MPs. In the earlier period 19 of the 25 MPs were appointed to the Herefordshire bench at some point in their careers, compared with as many as 17 of 18 in the later period (the only exception was the obscure William Walwyn). Of these 17, 11 were not named to the bench until after their first elections to Parliament and seven only after their recorded parliamentary careers were over. In 1437 Abrahall was named to the bench while sitting in his first Parl. for the county. None the less, since so many of the MPs were named to the bench during their parliamentary careers, a significant proportion of the county’s seats were taken by its serving j.p.s. In at least ten of the 21 Parliaments both were, and the total may be 12 if Walter Devereux I, an uncertain case, was a j.p. when elected in 1447 and 1450. To only four Parliaments – those of 1435, 1437, 1453 and 1460 – did the county return two MPs who did not have places on the bench. About two-thirds of the county’s seats were taken by j.p.s. (if Devereux was an j.p. when elected in 1447 and 1450), compared with a little less than half (27 out of 56) in the earlier period.

This increasing number of serving j.p.s. among the MPs reflects an enlargement of the bench rather than a rise in the number of lawyers among the MPs. Only two of the 18 can be certainly identified as men of law. Both Russell and Fitzharry were apprentices-at-law and members of the quorum. Another, Makelin Walwyn, may have been a lawyer of lesser stamp. If he was, then lawyers filled 11 of the 42 known seats; if not then only ten. Lawyers were thus slightly less conspicuous among the county’s MPs than they had been in the earlier period, when they took 15 of the 56 seats.

In regard to appointment to the bench in other counties, there was a significant overlap between the personnel of the Herefordshire bench and that of neighbouring Gloucestershire. Barre, the two Devereuxs, Herbert and Russell were all named as j.p.s in the latter county, although, in the cases of Derereux II and Herbert, not until after they had represented the county in Parliament. By contrast, only one of the MPs was appointed to the bench in the county’s other neighbours, Shropshire and Worcestershire, and that, in both cases, was Devereux II after the end of his brief career in the Commons. It is also worth noting that none of the county’s MPs held the shrievalty of either of those counties, but two – Devereux I and Barre – were sheriffs of Gloucestershire. This suggests that, as far as the county’s gentry looked outside their borders, it was south to Gloucestershire rather than east or north to its other neighbours.

When first elected Herefordshire’s MPs generally had little experience of local administration. Indeed, nine of them – de la Bere, Bromwich, the two Devereuxs, de la Hay, Herbert, Oldcastle, the elder Skydemore and William Walwyn – had held no administrative office before their first elections, although four of them had been appointed to at least one ad hoc commission.

To a greater extent than the MPs of most other shires, the Herefordshire MPs supplemented administrative with military service to the Crown. As many as 11 of the 18 are known to have undertaken such service against the nation’s external enemies, and most of that experience was won before service in Parliament. The figure is 12 if Oldcastle is included. In 1427 he sued out letters of protection as about to proceed to Ire., but it is not clear that he went: CPR, 1422-9, p. 409. Three or four of them – de la Hay, the elder Skydemore, Whitney and perhaps also de la Mare – fought against Owen Glendower in the early years of the century, a conflict in which the gentry of the Welsh march were, unsurprisingly, much more intensively involved than those of other shires. Later the appointment in 1436 of the county’s leading magnate, Richard, duke of York, as lieutenant-general in France, ensured that the involvement of Herefordshire’s MPs in the French war did not diminish as it did elsewhere. Indeed, they were more intensively involved after 1436 than they had been before. Only four of the MPs fought in Henry V’s French campaigns, namely the two Skydemores, Makelin Walwyn and Whitney. Local defensive needs partly explain this low level of participation, but later, with Wales subdued, this restraint was removed. Three of the MPs – de la Bere, the younger Skydemore and Makelin Walwyn – served on the coronation expedition of 1430, and with York’s appointment as lieutenant in France the interest of the county’s gentry in the French war intensified further. De la Bere, Barre, the younger Skydemore, Walter Devereux I and Herbert all served under the duke in France, with the latter two having significant military careers there. Men with military experience against either the Welsh or French filled as many as 18 of the 42 seats.

The relative militarization of Herefordshire was of significance during the civil war of 1459-61. The county was deeply divided by that conflict, and its MPs played a prominent part. Eight of the 18 lived during that war, and of these four are known to have been in arms. Herbert and Walter Devereux II were leading Yorkist commanders; Fitzharry and the younger Skydemore fought on the Lancastrian side. They faced each other at Mortimer’s Cross and probably also at Towton; in September 1461 Skydemore surrendered Pembroke castle, of which he was the Lancastrian captain, to Herbert and Devereux; and Fitzharry was one of the leaders of the Lancastrian force they defeated at Twt Hill near Caernarvon a few weeks later. Of the other four, Barre was probably on the Lancastrian side at Ludford Bridge but may have been deterred from further involvement by his Yorkist connexions. All that is known of Oldcastle identifies him with the Lancastrians: he was on the commission of array issued at the end of the Coventry Parliament. He died at some unknown date shortly after Easter term 1461 and it is possible that he fell on the Lancastrian side at the battle of Mortimer’s Cross (although, given his age, it is at least as likely that he died peacefully). Bromwich had been part of the Yorkist gang that hanged several Hereford citizens in 1456 and it may be that he fought for the house of York. Makelin Walwyn was the only one of the eight who cannot be clearly identified with either of the factions, although several of his near kin were identified with the Yorkists.

Two or perhaps three of the MPs took part in later civil conflict: Herbert was defeated fighting for Edward IV at the battle of Edgecote in 1469 and executed; Devereux II probably fought at the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury and died fighting for Richard III at Bosworth; and Fitzharry may have been in the Lancastrian ranks at Tewkesbury.

Despite this comparatively high level of military involvement, both at home and abroad, the county’s representation corresponds with the general decline in the proportion of belted knights among the Commons. Only six of the 18 MPs were knighted either before or during their parliamentary careers, with a further one, Walter Devereux II, raised to the rank after his only appearance in the Commons. Between 1422 and 1460 knights filled just 11 of the 42 known seats, and only in 1447 were both MPs knights at election. The younger Skydemore was knighted during the 1445 Parliament, and thus by the end of the assembly the county was represented by two knights. The situation in the earlier period was, at first sight, broadly similar: 18 of the 56 seats were filled by knights. The comparison is, however, deceptive. If the line of division is drawn in 1404 rather than 1422 a much more marked decline is apparent. Between 1386 and 1404 as many as 14 of the 32 seats were taken by knights; from 1406 to 1460 only 15 of 66 were so filled.

This decline is, in part, to be explained by a general fall in the number of knights, but this was matched in Herefordshire by a fall in the proportion of those who were knights who took seats in Parliament. Only six of the 19 knights who are recorded as attestors to Herefordshire elections between 1410 and 1478 are known to have represented the county in Parliament. Admittedly some had their principal interests in other counties which they did represent in Parliament, Sir William Lichfield*, who attested three Herefs. elections in the early 1420s, sat for Worcs. in 1431, and Sir John Pauncefoot had already represented Glos. when he attested the Herefs. election of 1429. but others were surprising omissions from the list of the county’s MPs. Sir Richard de la Bere, father of Kynard, attested six elections, but was never an MP despite his family’s tradition of parliamentary service; neither of the two Sir John Baskervilles, father and son, were MPs (although the younger John’s son, Sir James†, was); nor was the very wealthy Sir Walter Lucy (d.1444) of Richard’s Castle, who might have provided the north of the county with its only MP. Part of the reason may lie in a lack of opportunity. During much of the period when Lucy, Sir Richard de la Bere and the elder Sir John Baskerville might have aspired to a seat, the county’s representation was dominated by Russell and Merbury, both professional administrators of considerable influence, who filled 18 of the county’s 34 seats between the Parliaments of 1414 (Apr.) and 1433. On the other hand, it may be that their dominance was contingent upon a reluctance of some of the county’s leading landholders to seek election.

There was a marked contrast between the first and second part of the period under review here in respect of the number of the county’s MPs in royal service. The administrative opportunities provided to the local gentry by the principality of Wales and the extensive landholdings of the duchy of Lancaster in the marches ensured that several of them found employment under the Crown. In the first part of Henry VI’s reign these men dominated the county’s representation, as they had done during the reigns of the first two Lancastrian Kings. The Commons 1386-1421, i. 431. Two of the MPs were serving duchy officials: de la Hay was steward of Ebbw when sitting in the Parliaments of 1423 and 1431; and the elder Skydemore, when MP in 1426, 1429 and 1433, was steward of both Kidwelly and Monmouth. The latter also held an important place in the principality, as deputy justice of South Wales, when elected in 1433. In addition, it is likely that Russell was still, as he had long been, retained by the duchy as an apprentice-at-law when MP seven times between 1422 and 1433. This assumes that Russell was retained until the end of his life, although there is no record of the apprentices retained between 1422 and 1437: R. Somerville, Duchy, i. 453. Thus, between 1422 and 1433 serving officials, including Russell as apprentice, filled 12 of the 18 seats, and, if the definition of royal servant is widened, the dominance of royal servants in the county’s representation was almost complete. Of the other six seats, two were filled by Merbury, formerly steward of Kidwelly and Brecon, two by de la Mare, who had been an esquire of Henry IV’s household and was still a royal annuitant, and one by Whitney, who had received robes of the royal livery for the coronation of Queen Katherine in 1421. Only one seat, that, anomalously, taken by William Walwyn in 1432, was not filled by a current or former royal servant.

The later part of Henry VI’s reign stands in very marked contrast. From 1435 to 1460 only five of 24 seats were taken by serving officials: Abrahall was receiver of Monmouth when elected in 1442, and Fitzharry was deputy justice of South Wales when returned to four Parliaments between 1449 and 1459. In addition, de la Bere may have been a royal annuitant when elected in 1435. Clearly, as a generation of royal servants in the county passed away, they were not replaced. Of those of the 18 MPs who held royal and duchy offices, only Fitzharry began his parliamentary career after 1422. The Crown’s influence on the representation of Herefordshire thus diminished sharply after the early 1430s. This is not, of course, to say that the Crown had intervened to secure the return of its servants until that time and then failed to do so; only that it no longer recruited to its service the sort of men who might aspire to a seat for Herefordshire. None the less, so great was the prominence of royal servants among the county’s MPs in the early part of Henry VI’s reign that royal service must, in some way, have facilitated election.

As many as five of the MPs were employed by Humphrey Stafford, earl of Stafford and later duke of Buckingham. Of these, de la Bere had not yet entered his service when returned to Parliament in 1435; and although both Russell and Fitzharry were retained as lawyers by Stafford there is no reason to suppose that that service determined their elections to Parliament. For the two others, however, their place in the Stafford service may have been a factor in their elections. The duke was an early patron for the younger Skydemore, who was steward of his lordship of Brecon when MP in the Parliament of 1449 (Feb.) and had already found employment with him when he sat in his first Parliament four years before. Stafford service was probably of even greater significance in Abrahall’s elections. His early career had been notable for his involvement in disorder, and he was already of relatively advanced years when first elected for the county in 1437. It is unlikely to be pure chance that his election coincided with his entry into the earl’s service. He may already have been steward of Brecon as he certainly was when elected in 1442.

Only two of the MPs are known to have held office in the administration of the Talbot estates. The elder Skydemore was steward of the Talbot lordship of Archenfield when elected to the two Parliaments of 1414, but there is nothing to suggest that his connexion with the family was a factor in his later elections. Abrahall was receiver of Beatrice, widow of Gilbert, Lord Talbot, in the early 1420s but this was long before he represented the county in Parliament. Three other MPs were Talbot kinsmen by blood or marriage: de la Mare was John, Lord Talbot’s brother-in-law when elected in the 1420s; de la Bere was the husband of Talbot’s niece when MP in 1435; and Barre was Talbot’s nephew and godson. Yet Barre’s elections, even if they owed anything to external patronage, must have owed more to York than Talbot, excepting his final election in 1459, by which time he had deserted the duke. Despite this last election, there seems little doubt that the Talbot influence in the county declined after the 1420s, perhaps because of Lord Talbot’s lengthy absences in France (although, significantly, this decline is not apparent in neighbouring Shropshire).

After coming of age in 1432, York quickly established a close connexion with two of the county’s leading gentry, both men of his own age. In 1433 he granted an annuity to Barre, and in April 1435 he named Walter Devereux I as steward of his extensive Welsh lordships. Significantly, the latter was elected to Parliament a few months later, and the two men filled five of the county’s 12 seats between 1435 and 1447, when they sat together, and six of 18 from 1435 to 1450. No doubt both men had standing enough in their own right, but it would be taking scepticism too far to imagine that their service to the duke was irrelevant to their parliamentary careers. The 1450 elections, held in the wake of the duke’s return from Ireland, is revealing here. There is evidence from other counties to show that the duke indulged in active electioneering; and it is not, therefore, surprising that Devereux was returned at hustings held at Hereford on 24 Oct. and that, three days later, Barre was elected for Gloucestershire. Yet it is puzzling that Barre did not take the second Herefordshire seat. Although he had lands in Gloucestershire, he lived in Herefordshire. Had he stepped aside in favour of another of the duke’s men, sure in the knowledge that he could secure another seat, the two elections would be explicable. Yet the other Herefordshire MP was Fitzharry, who was later to show himself as one of the duke’s most determined local opponents. Either that hostility was not yet apparent or there were limits to the duke’s electoral influence even in Herefordshire. Later, however, as discussed below, that influence was successfully exerted in 1460.

The final potential influence in the county’s representation was that of the bishops of Hereford. Five of the 18 MPs are known to have held office in the episcopal administration. In the case of Merbury and Walter Devereux I they did not do so at the period they represented the county in Parliament. The other three, however, were returned when officers to the long-serving Bishop Spofford (1421-48): Abrahall was his steward when MP in three Parliaments between 1437 and 1442; Barre was in the same office when elected in 1447; and, if he has been correctly identified, William Walwyn was bailiff of the bishop’s franchise in the county when MP in 1432. Since the list of episcopal officers is anything but complete, it is likely that there are other instances when serving episcopal officials were elected (Barre, for example, may still have been the episcopal steward when returned in 1459); but whether these instances show anything more than that the bishops employed in the higher lay offices of their administration the sort of men likely to be elected for the county is an open question. Both Abrahall and Barre were wealthy and well-connected men who are unlikely to have required the bishop’s support to secure their seats. But Walwyn, whose election has no obvious explanation, may have done.

The electoral indentures offer hints, albeit tantalizing ones, of the influences at work in the elections they record. Thirty indentures survive for Herefordshire between 1410 and 1478. The average number of attestors named in each indenture is about 22, with four the lowest number (in 1460) and 170 the highest (in 1432). No doubt only the most important of those present at any election were named, and it is interesting in this regard that even the return of 1432 omits some of those present. This indenture, quite exceptionally – not only in the context of the Herefordshire indentures but in those of all other counties – notes the total number present, in this case 200. It is a generally accepted surmise that, when the sheriff sought security by naming many attestors, the election was either contested or contentious. On this basis, the 1432 election and perhaps also that of 1429, witnessed by as many as 50 attestors, are to be considered as possible contests. Unfortunately, however, there is no other evidence to give these putative contests a context. If, however, the 1432 election was a contest, it may be that the defeated candidate was Abrahall, who, after the sustained and dramatic disorderliness of his early career, was, in the early 1430s, finding a new respectability. His willingness to undertake parliamentary service is witnessed by his three successive elections from 1437 and 1442, and it is therefore significant that the 1432 indenture was attested not only by Abrahall himself, but also by his elderly father, his son-in-law, William Fitzthomas, and other of his kinsmen and associates. C219/14/3. Perhaps he organized their attendance to secure a seat, and, if so, it is surprising that he did not prevail. One of those returned, Russell, was too significant to fail at an election, but the other MP, William Walwyn, was the least important man to represent the county in the period under review here. It is possible that so many attended the election simply because they did not want the troublesome Abrahall.

The 1429 indenture is interesting not only because of the number of attestors but also because of their quality. The election brought together the leading local gentry in a way that no other recorded fifteenth-century Herefordshire election did. Of the 50 attestors, six were knights and 26, as designated in the indenture, esquires, including such significant figures as Merbury and Abrahall. C219/14/1. Another notable feature is the presence of several important men who had their main interests elsewhere: three were former Gloucestershire MPs, namely Sir John Pauncefoot†, Robert Poyntz† and Guy Whittington*; another, Walter Corbet†, had been MP for Worcestershire; and three others were prominent knights who, although two were certainly landholders in Herefordshire, played no other recorded part in its affairs, namely, Sir William ap Thomas (father of Herbert), Sir Walter Lucy and, most notably of all, Sir John Cornwall, soon to be summoned to Parliament as Lord Fanhope. One can only speculate as to what brought this unusual gathering together. There was nothing surprising about the two men returned, but it may be relevant that one of those elected, the elder Skydemore, while sitting in the Parliament began his ill-judged attempt to win the inheritance of his second wife, the heiress of Owen Glendower, from the Beauforts. Two of his kinsmen – his son, John, and George Skydemore – were among the attestors, and it may thus be that the question of the Glendower lands was a factor in the election.

Later the elections of the 1450s show clear signs of the influence of the divisions in central politics. The 1450 election has already been discussed, and national divisions may also have informed the election to the 1453 Parliament. The return is irregular in that the names of the two MPs, Makelin Walwyn and Oldcastle, have been clumsily inserted in a blank left when the indenture was first drafted. Further, the indenture is dated 10 Mar., four days after Parliament had convened at Reading. The election should have been held at the previous county court on 10 Feb., three weeks after the issue of the writ. Perhaps the delivery of the writ was so delayed as to make this impossible; alternatively, an election may have been held and subsequently set aside for a later one. Interestingly, Walter Devereux I is known to have been in Reading in the assembly’s early days, and it may be not an entirely idle speculation that he had been elected on 10 Feb. and that the second election was held to exclude him because of his Yorkist sympathies. The identity of the sheriff in 1453, Thomas Cornwall, a household esquire and later a committed Lancastrian, does nothing to contradict this surmise, particularly as he was then in dispute with Devereux over a wardship.

For the elections of 1459 and 1460 one does not have to resort to such speculation to detect the operation of political factors. Indeed, the hustings for the election of 1459 must have been as tense and highly-charged as any fifteenth-century election. Their timing was extraordinary. On 9 Oct., while the King was at Leominster, writs of summons were issued for Parliament to assemble at Coventry; on the night of 12 Oct. the Yorkist lords ignominiously fled from Ludford Bridge; and on the following day the sheriff of Herefordshire, (Sir) William Catesby*, knight of the body to Henry VI, convened an election some 23 miles away at Hereford. The gathering was a surprising one in that several of those who, in all probability, had confronted each other in arms at Ludford Bridge now found themselves as representatives of rival factions in the county court. Remarkably, given the events of the night before, several Yorkists were present, most notably the duke of York’s receiver-general, John Milewater, and Bromwich, and their purpose was probably to prevent the election of Lancastrian partisans. If so, they, unsurprisingly, failed. They were overmatched by a much more powerful Lancastrian faction, including the younger Skydemore (with his son Henry and brother William), and Thomas Cornwall, who had no doubt made their way directly from the Lancastrian encampment. Fitzharry was returned with Barre, who had by then abandoned York for Lancaster. C219/16/5.

The election of a year later was held in entirely different circumstances. Early in September 1460, after the Yorkist victory at the battle of Northampton, the duke of York returned from Ireland and made his way in triumph through the Welsh marches before arriving in London on 9 Oct. No doubt Herbert and Walter Devereux II joined him in this progress, and on 4 Oct. they were elected to represent Herefordshire. It is likely that the election, which was held only three days before Parliament was due to assemble, had been held over, perhaps to await the duke’s homecoming. The Parl. had been summoned on 30 July and one would have expected the election to have been held on 6 Sept. However, the duke did not land until about 9 Sept.: P.A. Johnson, Duke Richard of York, 210. The indenture suggests an irregularity in their return in that only four attestors, all obscure men, are named. C219/16/6.

Although these two elections of 1459 and 1460 had very different results they had one thing in common: the sheriff, first Catesby and then (Sir) James Baskerville, returned their brothers-in-law, Barre in Catesby’s case and Devereux in Baskerville’s. This raises the question of the influence on elections of personal relations among the gentry. Earlier, in 1435, Merbury had presided over the election of his son-in-law and adopted heir, Walter Devereux I, and there are, not surprisingly, several instances where there was a close connexion between an MP and some of the attestors who witnessed his election. For example, in 1429 the election of the elder Skydemore was, as mentioned above, attested by his son John and George Skydemore; in 1432 William Walwyn was elected by his brother Makelin and three other Walwyns; and in 1435 the attestors to Devereux’s election were headed by his brother John and his brother-in-law, Richard Walwyn of Marcle. Such instances are numerous enough to suggest that it was common practice for those seeking election to bring their own supporters to the county court, as the unsuccessful Abrahall appears to have done in 1432.

As many as 14 of the 18 MPs are recorded as attesting at least one election in Herefordshire. Of the four who did not, the younger Devereux and Herbert had few opportunities to do so, but the absence of Fitzharry and Russell, both so long active in other aspects of the county’s affairs, is surprising. By contrast four of the MPs were remarkably assiduous in their attendance at elections: de la Mare and Bromwich are each recorded as attesting ten, de la Hay nine and Whitney seven. Between them the 14 MPs attested at least 65 elections in Herefordshire. Interestingly, only two of the MPs are known to have attested elections outside this county. Barre attested the Gloucestershire election of 1467; and Russell appeared at three Gloucestershire elections and one in Shropshire, attesting the elections in both counties in 1429 when he was himself returned for Herefordshire.

Several of the MPs can be shown to have taken advantage of their time in Parliament to forward either their own affairs or those of others. Merbury and Russell can be associated with petitions presented in the Parliaments in which they sat. Russell may have used his influence as Speaker in 1423 to facilitate the adoption by the Commons of bills from the residents of the south-western corner of the county, disturbed by the depredations of Abrahall and Lord Talbot. He may also have been responsible for presenting in the Parliament of 1429 a petition relevant to the affairs of Anne Stafford, the dowager-countess of March, who employed him as her steward at Usk. PROME, x. 187-8; RP, iv. 384-5. By contrast, Merbury forwarded a purely personal matter: in 1427 he secured the support of his fellow Members when he petitioned the Crown for the restoration of a royal annuity. The same may be true of Walter Devereux I in the Parliament of 1455: he presented a petition to the Commons asking that his indictment in 1452 for treason be annulled, and there are grounds for thinking that he was then sitting for the county. PROME, x. 340-1; RP,v. 342; SC8/105/5239.

The representation of Herefordshire was dominated by a closely-related group of families long-established there and, for that reason, had a high degree of continuity with relatively few of its seats taken by parliamentary novices. From the beginning of the Lancastrian period to the early 1430s the bulk of its MPs had strong connexions with the Crown, but thereafter the royal affinity in the county diminished and the principal electoral influence became that of the duke of York. None the less, the duke’s influence did not preclude the development of a strong Lancastrian faction in the county, principally nurtured by the Lancastrian duke of Buckingham. Thus, in the strife-torn 1450s the county’s seats were divided, according to which faction was in the ascendant in national politics, between committed supporters of Lancaster and York.