22 August 2024: Due to technical disruption, we are experiencing some delays to publication. We are working to restore services and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/universitypress/about-us/news-and-blogs/cambridge-university-press-publishing-update-following-technical-disruption
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Factionalism among the nobility and gentry was a common although by no means universal phenomenon of local politics in Tudor England. During the 1560s it was the foremost fact in the political life of Hampshire. Co-operation among the gentry is at least as significant a phenomenon for the historian as conflict. At the same time conflict is much more likely to have left documen tation. The amiable resolution of local issues would usually be celebrated by silence while a dispute was likely to culminate in a lawsuit. For Hampshire in the 1560s the survival of one of the earliest and most fully preserved disputed election cases in Star Chamber from the reign of Elizabeth provides crucial evidence of the occurrence of conflict and the motivations of the participants. Thanks to the existence of this material, which includes lists of voters for both sides, the members of both factions are clearly identified. In addition the local issues at stake are further clarified. As a result all of the evidence surviving for the entire decade can be tied together to produce a comprehensive picture of the local political situation in Hampshire.
1 The evidence for this disputed election comes from four bundles of material from the Court of Star Chamber in the Public Record Office in London. They are STAC 4/7/18, STAC 5/P30/32, STAC 5/W36/33, and STAC 5/W45/38. STAC 4/7/18 is wrongly classified as being from the reign of Mary. That mistake was crucial for this article since the material in STAC 4 provided enough information and clues to find the other parts in STAC 5. These STAC 5 parts of the case were not used by Neale, J. E. in The Elizabethan House of Commons (London, 1949) for his discussion of disputed elections. However, Neale has used this material to write the article about Hampshire's Elizabethan parliamentary constituencies for the unpublished volume of the History of Parliament. I was given kind permission by Mr Peter Hasler of the History of Parliament Trust to read this material in typescript. Professor Neale's interpretation differs dramatically from mine. He sees the disputed election as a conflict between local representatives of the central government and a group of radical Puritans for a seat in the Commons. To him, therefore, this disputed election was simply a local reflexion of the political and religious struggles that Neale considered were the dominant feature of the domestic politics of Elizabethan England.Google Scholar
2 Public Record Office SP 12/90/18, fos. 66–71. Hereafter all documents cited are held in the Public Record Office unless otherwise stated.
3 [Stephen, L. and Lee, S. (eds.)], D[ictionary of] N[ational] B[iography, 22 vols, London 19091908–], ‘Paulet, William First Marquis of Winchester’.Google Scholar
4 Calendar of patent rolls preserved in the Public Record Office: Edward VI (6 vols., London, 19291924–), iv, 139 and 178–80Google Scholar; Calendar of patent rolls preserved in the Public Record Office: Philip and Mary (4 vols., London, 19391936–), iv, 146–7. Hereafter cited as CPR.Google Scholar
5 Smith, S. M., ‘Ancestors of Sir William Paulet, K. G., 1st Marquis of Winchester, Lord Treasurer’, reprinted from Miscellanea Genealogica et Heraldica (London, 1936), pp. 28–9.Google Scholar
6 PROB 11/42A/25 and 35/4; Charles Franklyn, A. H., A genealogical history of the families of Paulet (or Pawlett), Berewe (or Barrow), Lawrence and Parker (Bedford, 1963), pp. 48–9; B[ritish] L[ibrary] Lansdowne MS 1218.Google Scholar
7 Bateson, Mary, (ed.), ‘A collection of original letters from the bishops to the privy council, 1564, with returns of the justices of the peace and others within their respective dioceses, classified according to their religious convictions’, in Camden Miscellany IX (Camden Society New Series, LIII, 1895), p. 55. Hereafter cited as ‘Bishop's letters’.Google Scholar
8 Rylands, W. Harry, ed., Pedigrees from the visitation of Hampshire (Harleian Society Visitations, lxiv, 1913), p. 82. Hereafter cited as Visit. Hants.Google Scholar
9 Loc. cit.; CPR Philip and Mary, III, 402–3, 531 and iv, 106; Hatfield House MS 202, fos. 73–4.Google Scholar
10 ‘Bishop's letters’, p. 55; Leveson Gower, Granville, ‘Notices of the family of Uvedale of Titsey, Surrey and Wickham, Hants’, Surrey Archaeological Collections, III (1865), 118; Smith, ‘Ancestors of Sir William Paulet’, pp. 28–9.Google Scholar
11 East, Robert (ed.), Extracts from the records of Portesmouth (Portsmouth, 1894), pp. 392–9; SP 12/14/40.Google Scholar
12 ‘Bishop's letters’, p. 55; Cokayne, G. E., Complete peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland (rev. edn by V. Gibbs, 13 vols., London, 19491910–), XII, pt. ii, 763; B.L. Harleian MS 5865, fo. 23 d.Google Scholar
13 P 12/19/36 ff. 74–75 and 59/46; ‘Bishop's letters’, pp. 53–6.
14 PROB 11/53/46 and 60/20.
15 DNB, ‘Horne, Robert’; Houlbrooke, Ralph, ‘The protestant episcopate 1547–1603: the pastoral contribution’, in Church and society in England: Henry VIII to James I, eds. Heal, Felicity and O'Day, Rosemary (London, 1977), passim.Google Scholar
16 Garrett, Cristina, The Marian exiles: a study in the origins of Elizabethan Puritanism (1938; rpt. Cambridge, 1968), p. 68; DNB, ‘Acworth, George.’Google Scholar
17 N[ational] R[egistry of] A[rchives report on] Kingsmill [of Sidmontan, Hampshire] MSS (1965), no. 1088; Baker, J. H., ed., The reports of Sir John Spelman, II (Selden Society, XCIV, 1978), 371; Visit. Hants., pp. 2–3; SP 1/144/197, 146/237–40, and 150/138–9.Google Scholar
18 Visit. Hants., pp. 16–17. The herald's pedigree is mistaken in making John Gifford I and Joane Bruges the parents of Richard Gifford. John Gifford I was actually Richard's brother and William Gifford was the father of both men. See the will of William Gifford (PROB 11/32/43) and John Gifford II (PROB 11/46/21).
19 Visit. Hants., pp. 2–3 and 16–17; Bannerman, W. Bruce, ed., The visitation of the county of Sussex (Harleian Society Visitations, LIII, 1905), pp. 45–6; PROB 11/20/5.Google Scholar
20 PROB 11/20/5, 37/38, and 42A/21.
21 ‘Bishop's letters’, p. 9.
22 Foxe, John, Acts and Monuments (eds. Cattley, S. R. and Townsend, George, 8 vols., London, 18411837–), VII, 490–2. Hereafter cited as Foxe, A&M.Google Scholar
23 C 142/115/47.
24 Foxe, A & M, VII, pp. 490–2; Roche Dasent, John, ed., Acts of the privy council of England (New series, 32 vols., London, 19071897–), vi, 361, 371–2. Hereafter cited as APC. 25 See below pp. 282–3.Google Scholar
26 Visit. Hants., pp. 16–17 and 24–6; DNB, ‘Wallop, John’.
27 H[ampshire] R[ecord] O[ffice] 5M52/935.
28 Visit. Hants., pp. 2–3 and 13–15; SP 1/146/237–40; The records of the Honorable Society of Lincoln's Inn: admissions, 1420–1893, and chapel register (2 vols., London, 1896), 1, 37–8.Google Scholar
29 ‘Bishop's letters’, pp. 53–6; C 142/131/184; and PROB 11/45/9.
30 SP 1/146/237–40; CPR Edward VI, iv, 178–80. Richard Norton would have been about seventeen years old in 1547. See C 142/131/184 where he is said to be thirty-one years old at his father's death on 5 July 1561.
31 Foxe, A&M, vi, 226–7; CPR Edward VI, iv, 178–80.
32 Visit. Hants., p. 11. The herald's pedigree incorrectly shows James Haydok as the son of Thomas's brother Alexander. In his will Thomas calls James his eldest son. See PROB 11/34/31.
33 PROB 11/34/31.
34 HRO QM1/fo. 66 and passim; SP 12/59/92; STAC 5/W45/38. The Star Chamber material shows that James Haydok was supporting Henry Wallop and the Protestant faction in the disputed by-election of 1566.
35 PROB 11/51/11; HRO QM1/fo. 26.
36 Visit. Hants., pp. 3, 51; HRO QM1/fo. 44d; ‘Bishop's letters’, p. 53.
37 C 1/1479/8–12; Gower, ‘Notices of the Uvedale family’, p. 113.
38 ‘Bishop's letters’, pp. 54–5; see below p. 281.
39 PROB 11/51/17; WARD 7/12/36; Gower, ‘Notices of the Uvedale family’, pp. 114–17.
40 Visit. Hants., pp. 2–3; SP 12/1/43; B.L. Lansdowne MS 8, fo. 212; HRO QM1/passim; ‘Bishop's letters’, p. 55.
41 Garrett, Marian exiles, p. 208.
42 DNB, ‘Kingsmill, Andrew’.
43 PROB 11/51/11.
44 ‘Bishop's letters’, p. 55; CPR Edward VI, 1, 84; Calendar of patent rolls preserved in the Public Record Office: Elizabeth I (6 vols., London, 19731939–), 1, 442; PROB 11/39/5; and 150/997/2.Google Scholar
45 Victoria history of the counties of England: Hampshire and the Isle of Wight (ed. Page, William, 5 vols., London, 19121900–), III, 436, hereafter cited as VCH Hants.; HRO QM1/passim; ‘Bishop's letters’, p. 55. Also see below p. 284.Google Scholar
46 B.L. Lansdowne MS 1218, fos. 26–7; HRO QM1/fos. 2, 7d, 10d, 14, 17d and 19. Since the liber pacis of December 1558 does not list all of the J.P.s serving in Hampshire during these two years, I have also included those J.P.s who only appear on the attendence lists of the quarter sessions minute book.
47 Paulet's J.P.s: William Paulet, Knt.; Henry Seymour, Knt.; John Berkeley, Knt.; William Warham, Knt.; Richard Pexsall, Knt.; Robert Oxenbridge, Knt.; Adrian Poynings; Thomas Pace; William Pawlett; Richard Dowce and Robert White. Protestant J.P.s: John Gifford, Richard Gifford, Richard Kingsmill, William Kingsmill, Henry Wallop, William Uvedale, Thomas Inckpen (Ingpen), James Pagett and William Bowyer. John Norton was possibly a member of the Protestant group.
48 Catholic J.P.s: John Browne (Brune), Knt.; John White of Southwick; Thomas Shelley; William Bulkeley; William Dale; Robert Penruddock; Thomas Salmon and Anthony Cope. Nominally Protestant J.P.s: Robert Cresswell, John Fitzwilliam, George Rythe, William Jobson, Nicholas Vaux, George Darrell and William Kayleway.
49 Richard Worseley, captain of the Isle of Wight; George Mille; and John Mues (Mewes).
50 New Paulet J.P.s: William Paulet, Knt.; John Berkeley, Knt.; Robert Oxenbridge, Knt.; Richard Pexsall, Knt.; Adrian Poynings; Richard Dowce and William Pawlett. Of the Protestant group only John Norton was not a new Elizabethan J.P.
51 Anthony Cope was a new Catholic J.P. and William Jobson and George Darrell were new nominally Protestant J.P.s. 52 B.L. Lansdowne MS 1218, fos. 26–7.
53 SP 12/17/23.
54 SP 12/19/36, fos. 74–5.
55 Loc. cit.
56 SP 12/12/7–9 and 14/40; HRO 1M53/1331, fo. 29.
57 SP 12/19/36, fo. 75.
58 B.L. Lansdowne MS 1218; C.P.R. Elizabeth I,11, 44. The purged Catholic J.P.s were William Dale, Thomas Salmon and Robert White. The nominally Protestant J.P. was Robert Cresswell, who had been appointed during Mary's reign.
59 George Darrell, Thomas Dering, John Foster, George Mille, Richard Norton, James Pagett and Richard Pexsall.
60 B.L. Lansdowne MS 7, fo. 139; NRA Kingsmill MSS, no. 1234.
61 ‘Bishop's letters’, pp. 53–6.
62 The four Catholic J.P.s were Thomas Shelley, William Buckeley, Robert Penruddock and John White of Southwick.
63 In the absence of surviving commissions of the peace, I used the attendence of J.P.s at quarter sessions found in HRO QM1/passim.
64 ‘Bishop's letters’, p. 54; HRO QM1, fos. 69 and 71 d.
65 Protestant faction: Robert Horne, bishop of Winchester; George Acworth, chancellor of the diocese of Winchester; Oliver Wallop, Knt.; Richard Gifford; William Uvedale; Richard Kingsmill; William Kingsmill; John Foster; Richard Norton; William Jephson (Jesson); John Thornborough; James Pagett; Thomas Dering; Henry Wallop and James Haydok. Paulet's faction: John Paulet, Lord St John; Chidiock, Lord Paulet; William Paulet, Knt.; Henry Seymour, Knt.; Adrian Poynings, Knt.; John Berkeley, Knt. and Richard Pexsall, Knt.
66 John Mason, Knt.; William Kayleway, Knt.; Richard Worseley; George Mille and John White of Southwick.
67 B.L. Lansdowne MS 12/27, fos. 63 and 63d.
68 , Browne, , Willis, Notitia Parliamentaria (3 vols., London, 17501715–), III pt. ii, 44Google Scholar; Return of the name of every member of the lower house of the parliaments of England, Scotland, and Ireland, 1213–1874 (3 vols. in Parliamentary Papers, 1878, LXII, pts. i-iii), 1, 387, 398, 401, and 405Google Scholar; DNB, ‘Mason, John’; MacCaffrey, Wallace, The shaping of the Elizabethan regime (Princeton, 1968), p. 142Google Scholar; Neale, J. E., Elizabeth I and her parliaments (2 vols., London, 19571953–), 1, 129–40.Google Scholar
69 STAC 5/P30/32, fos. 1–2d.
70 Neale, House of Commons, p. 80.
71 STAC 5/P30/32, fos. 9 and 16–17.
72 Ibid. fo. 9.
73 Ibid. fo. 1.
74 STAC 5/W36/33, unfoliated, deposition of Richard Pexsall, answer nos. 1–5.
75 STAC 5/P30/32, fo. 2d.
76 STAC 4/7/18, bill of complaint of Richard Pexsall.
77 STAC 5/P30/32, fos. 2d, 9d–10 and 17d.
78 STAC 4/7/18, bill of complaint of Richard Pexsall.
79 STAC 5/P30/32, interrogatories for the part of Richard Pexsall.
80 Ibid. fos. 1d–2d, 9–10, and 19.
81 See below p. 283.
82 Neale, House of Commons, pp. 96–8.
83 STAC 5/P30/31, depositions of William Kingsmill, Richard Norton and John Fisher, answer no. 17.
84 STAC 5/W36/33, deposition of Richard Pexsall, answer no. 1.
85 Ibid., interrogatories for the part of Henry Wallop, question no. 42; STAC 5/P30/32, depositions of William Kingsmill, Richard Norton and John Fisher, answer no. 16.
86 STAC 4/7/18, bill of complaint of Richard Pexsall.
87 STAC 5/P30/32, depositions of William Kingsmill, Richard Norton and John Fisher, answer nos. 15 and 17.
88 STAC 5/W36/33, deposition of Richard Pexsall, answer no. 39.
89 STAC 4/7/18, bill of complaint of Richard Pexsall; STAC 5/W45/38, rejoinder of Richard Pexsall.
90 STAC 5/P30/32, depositions of William Kingsmill, Richard Norton and John Fisher, answer no. 25.
91 STAC 5/W45/38, bill of complaint, replication and surrejoinder of Henry Wallop.
92 STAC 5/P30/32, depositions of William Kingsmill, Richard Norton and John Fisher, answers nos. 26, 30, and 36.
93 STAC 5/W36/33, deposition of Richard Pexsall, answer no. 15.
94 Ibid., interrogatories for the part of Henry Wallop, question no. 24 and deposition of Richard Pexsall, answer no. 24.
95 Ibid., question and answer no. 40.
96 Ibid., answer no. 27; STAC 5/P30/32, depositions of William Kingsmill, Richard Norton and John Fisher, answers nos. 34 and 35.
97 STAC 5/W36/33, deposition of Richard Pexsall, answers nos. 29 and 30; STAC 5/W45/38, lists of freeholders who voted for Henry Wallop and Sir John Berkeley which were compiled for Wallop's Star Chamber case.
98 STAC 5/W36/33, the date of Pexsall's deposition; STAC 4/7/18, bill of complaint of Richard Pexsall; STAC 5/W45/38, the date of the examinations of witnesses for the part of Henry Wallop.
99 Hatfield House MS 202, fos. 73–4.
100 , Browne, Notitia Parliamentaria, III pt. ii, 84; C 219/28/108.Google Scholar
101 C 142/44/94; DNB, ‘Paulet, William, First Marquis of Winchester’; Elton, G. R., Reform and reformation: England 1509–1558 (London, 1977), p. 358Google Scholar; Conyers Read, Mr Secretary Cecil and Queen Elizabeth (London, 1955), p. 352.Google Scholar
102 Ibid. p. 443; Beckingsale, B. W., Burghley: Tudor statesman, 1520–1508 (London, 1967), pp. 122–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
103 STAC 5/W45/38, the lists of freeholders voting for Henry Wallop and Sir John Berkeley compiled for Henry Wallop's Star Chamber case. In this document nineteen Protestants and seven Catholics have been identified as voting for Wallop. By comparision nine Catholics and five Protestants have been identified as voting for Berkeley. These identifications are based on SP 12/90/18, fos. 66–71, which is a list of the religious dispositions of important people in Hampshire.
104 SP 1/146/237–40.
105 See above pp. 278–80.
106 STAC 5/W45/38, depositions of Thomas Shelley; SP 12/59/46.
107 See above p. 270.
