Bletchingley

Bletchingley, or Blechingley as it was rendered at this period, was a market town five miles east of Reigate, situated on the road from Godstone to Redhill. VCH Surr. iv. 253. Forty-nine households were considered liable for the hearth tax in 1662, and 46 the following year. U. Lambert, Blechingley (1921), ii. 437. Although it had returned Members from 1295, it had never been incorporated as a borough. The right of election, usually exercised in a large house called ‘the Hall’, lay in the burgage holders, who exchanged indentures directly with the sheriff of Surrey. Manning and Bray, Surr. ii. 291, 295. In the early seventeenth century the manor had been held by Anne, Lady Howard, widow of Sir William Howard†, Baron Howard of Effingham (d. 1615). Although the borough’s MPs frequently had connections to the Howards, they were generally also local men; burgage-holders resisted the countess’s attempts to exercise complete electoral patronage. Gentry living in and around the borough – such as Edward Bysshe I of Burstow (elected four times 1624-1628) and John Evelyn of Godstone (first elected 1628) – were evidently considered to have powerful claims. After a particularly contentious election in 1624, the return of Lady Howard’s trustee was rejected by the privileges committee, the manor bailiff was denied any role, and the franchise was reaffirmed as being in the burgage-holders only. However, the expectation that the lord of the manor might nominate one Member seems to have persisted. HP Commons 1604-1629.

Following the countess’s death in 1638, the manor passed to her only child, Elizabeth, wife of John Mordaunt, 1st earl of Peterborough. Blechingley, i. 274; VCH Surr. iv. 257. It is not clear how involved the couple were in the politics of the borough, but since the earl refused to pay Ship Money or contribute to Charles I’s wars in the north it is conceivable that in the election on 20 March 1640 they exerted an influence in favour of returning those critical of royal policy. ‘John Mordaunt, 1st earl of Peterborough’, Oxford DNB. All the same, Edward Bysshe I*’s record as an MP and his local prominence were possibly the chief factors in his re-election to Parliament. He received 23 votes from ‘all of the freemen’ in a poll in which three candidates were returned. When the election came before the privileges committee on 16 April, Bysshe’s return – to the senior seat, as was apparent from the indenture, which left a blank for his partner – was found ‘the clearest’. C219/42/133; CJ ii. 3b; Procs. Short Parl. 144. But despite a motion that he might ‘speak in his own case’, he still had to withdraw temporarily from the House owing to a ruling that until a dispute was definitively settled, no candidates could sit. Procs. Short Parl. 144; CJ ii. 3b. Instructed to ‘expedite this business’, the committee reported the following day that Bysshe was ‘well elected’ and promptly added him to their number when the Commons agreed and called him into the House. CJ ii. 4b.

The other two candidates were Sir Francis Carewe† and Edmund Hoskins*, who lived respectively at Beddington and Carshalton, both about 10 miles north of Bletchingley. The former, who had sat four times for two other Surrey boroughs, was a gentleman of the bedchamber whose estates were encumbered with debt and was endorsed by members of the Constable family. ‘Francis Carewe II’, HP Commons 1604-1629; C219/42/135. The latter, whose chief supporter was one Charles Hoskyns, probably his brother, was a successful lawyer with City connections. C219/42/134. Hoskins submitted a petition before 16 April and seemed to be pressing for a solution, but no formal decision either on his or Carewe’s claims was recorded before the end of the session. CJ ii. 3b. Hoskins may quietly have taken his seat by 4 May, when a Mr Hoskins spoke in debate, apparently attacking Ship Money. Aston’s Diary, 131. If this was Edmund and not Bennet Hoskins, it was on the strength of 11 votes polled to Carewe’s 12, according to the privileges committee. It may be that opponents of crown policy had found some means to disqualify Carewe, of whom nothing more is heard at Westminster, or it may be that a second examination of the indentures resolved the contest otherwise. Notwithstanding the entry in the Journal, the indenture naming Hoskins appears to name 12 voices, whereas that for Carewe lists fewer. C219/42/134, C219/42/135.

On the face of it, the 22 October election was more straightforward. Bysshe, who had already resigned another office on the ground of his age, handed his interest in a seat at Bletchingley to his son, Edward Bysshe II, who was also a lawyer. CSP Dom. 1637, p. 193. The other seat went to John Evelyn, who for reasons unknown seems not to have contested the spring election. As in 1628, he was noticeably protective of his interest in local gunpowder manufacture. Procs. LP ii. 308-9, 637. Bysshe was apparently a somewhat intermittent attender in the Commons, while Evelyn, who was knighted in 1641, was at times quite prominent, although he was eclipsed in importance by his nephew Sir John Evelyn* of Wiltshire. Both the Bletchingley Members were rather lukewarm parliamentarians during the civil war, and neither sat after Pride’s Purge. E.g. CJ ii. 822b, 845b, 256b, 374b.

Under the Instrument of Government, Bletchingley was disenfranchised. Bysshe II, who had reconciled himself to the new regime, sat for the nearby boroughs of Reigate in 1654 and Gatton in 1659. Another local resident, Robert Holman* of Pendell Court, sat for Surrey in 1656. In the meantime, the direct Mordaunt interest probably ebbed. The 1st earl of Peterborough fought for Parliament before his death in 1643, but his elder son, Henry Mordaunt, the second earl, was a royalist, as was the younger son, John Mordaunt, eventually created 1st Viscount Mordaunt of Avalon, who claimed an interest in the manor of Bletchingley. Both brothers were sequestered, but while Peterborough lived quietly in Northamptonshire, Avalon was among more notable plotters for the restoration of the monarchy. Arrested and then acquitted of treason in 1658, he was again at work in 1659, although he was a controversial figure even among fellow royalists. Lambert, Blechingley, i. 274-5; ii. 435; ‘Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough’, ‘Mordaunt, John, 1st viscount Avalon’, Oxford DNB.

The field may thus have been left free for competing local gentry, although any traces of a contest are lost. Evelyn may have been disinclined to come out of retirement at this point, although it is not certain that he did not stand. It is not clear why Bysshe opted for Gatton, but he may have anticipated competition from John Goodwyn*, the seasoned Surrey and Sussex MP who had probably by this time taken on the tenancy of Bletchingley Place from the Mordaunts. Lambert, Blechingley, i. 275-6. Goodwyn was duly elected. Edmund Hoskins, who had quietly prospered and extended his landed interests in Surrey in the late 1640s and 1650s, was returned as junior Member. VCH Surr. iv. 182, 185. He may possibly be counted among covert royalists in the Parliament.

Both Evelyn and Bysshe took their seats again for Bletchingley in February 1660 with other MPs excluded in 1648. Elections for the Convention were contested by four men who had all previously represented the borough, reinforcing the impression of local gentry jockeying for a place. Evelyn and Goodwyn were returned; Bysshe and Hoskins were disappointed on this occasion, although Bysshe was more fortunate in 1661.