|
As
in other medieval boroughs, the original
burgage plots would have become split
into separate holdings over a period
of time. One of the ways in
which property could become sub-divided
is illustrated in the will of Alice
Kimber of Weobley in 1408, a lady
who seems to have had no high opinion
of the men in her life. Alice left
to her daughter, Juliana, and Juliana’s
two sons, her burgage with buildings
except for a chamber at the south
end of the hall and a barn course
(cursu orii) which she left
to her husband John Rybbesford (she
seems to have retained the surname
of a previous husband). If John
sold the chamber, Juliana’s
sons, Hugh and Walter were to be preferred
as buyers. The son-in-law was
to have no share – ‘if
John Leather claimed the burgage in
right of said Juliana his wife, the
said Juliana to lose her right therein
for the time (pro illo tempore)’.
The 16th century saw a
great growth in the popularity of
the House of Commons as vehicle for
social and political advancement.
During the century the number of MPs
rose from 296 to 462 (Neale,
1963). Some of these seats
were created in order to increase
the political power of magnates who
sought to fill them with their clients.
Most however were created by the initiative
of local gentry who could not compete
for the more prestigious county seats,
those of the knights of the shire,
against the more powerful families
who controlled them.
The practice of parliamentary borough
creation continued under the early
Stuarts. 45 more seats were
created in the reigns of James I and
Charles I. It was of particular
advantage, in order to become a parliamentary
borough, to be able to demonstrate
that that borough had anciently returned
members. It was in this context
that James Tomkins, from Garnstone,
one mile outside Weobley, sought to
regain the borough’s ancient
seats. Tomkins, one of the MPs
for Leominster, was successful and
the two new MPs were returned on 13th
May 1628 (Hillaby,
1967, p110). Sadly for the
short term political careers and social
expectations of the pair, William
Walter and William Tomkins, Charles
I chose to dissolve parliament early
in 1629 and ruled by Royal Prerogative
for the next eleven years (Davies,
G, 1959).
In 1295, Weobley’s burgesses,
Adam Sagoun and John Compaygnoun presumably
had been, like the rest of the commoners,
local men. The membership of
the House of Commons remained legally
defined in the 16th century,
as it always had been, as two knights
from every shire and two
burgesses from every town.
The law was explicit that this should
be so and there were occasional challenges
to the increasing tendency of boroughs
to be represented by non-resident
country gentry. These gentry
tended to be less parochial in their
interests than the burgesses, and
the increasing confidence of the gentry
class as represented in parliament
was ultimately to mount the challenge
to royal authority which was to lead
to the overthrow of the crown itself.
The disruption caused by the civil
wars in the mid-17th century
did not pass Weobley entirely by.
In the summer of 1645 the Scottish
army besieging the city of Hereford
had spread widely across the countryside
and was present in Weobley.
A letter
from ‘his excellency, the
Earl of Leven, Lord General of the
Scottish Armies’ orders
his troops not to molest the person
or family of Thomas Bridges of the
Ley, Weobley, nor to plunder his livestock
nor property.
Joe Hillaby (see above) has demonstrated
how, during the two hundred year period
that the post-medieval parliamentary
borough of Weobley existed, just six
families dominated its politics.
He showed that over time each family
tended to be eclipsed in its influence
by one of less local involvement and
of greater national political power.
This coincided with the growth of
land ownership by the aristocracy.
In 1663 peers owned very little property
in Herefordshire; around 2% of the
total. In Stretford Hundred,
of which Weobley formed part, knights,
baronets and lesser gentry owned 44%
of the land. Peers owned 3%,
and the remaining 53% was owned by
others (Faraday,
M, 1972, p 18). The growth
of land ownership by the aristocracy
in succeeding decades was to give
it greater political influence.
The Thynnes, Viscounts Weymouth, and
Marquises of Bath from
1789, although Lords of the Manor
of Weobley, exercised their influence
from distant Longleat in Wiltshire.
In 1749 Viscount Weymouth purchased,
from Mansel
Powell some ancient (vote) houses
in Weobley (Salt, 1953, p43).
These houses were only inhabited at
election time when tenants from outside
the borough were brought in to occupy
them and exercise the franchise, and
so by 1754 Weobley became a pocket
borough of the Thynne family (Hillaby,
1967, p109). The political
affiliation of Weobley’s members
changed from Whig to Tory.
Elections entailed certain expenses
for the Thynnes.
The payments made for the uncontested
elections of 1771 and 1780 amounted
to £175 14s 6d and £143 5s 8d respectively.
The geographic origin of the electors
is apparent in the 1771 expense account
when payments were made to 11 Shropshire
Burgesses, 4 Glostershire
Burgesses, 4 Bodenham Burgesses, and
4 Brecknockshire and Radnorshire Burgesses.
A ‘treat promised the borough’
cost £20 9s.
In the 1780s and 90s, the hon. Thomas
Thynne (1786), Lord George Thynne
(1790 and 1796) and Lord John Thynne
(1796) all represented Weobley.
Thomas Thynne’s sons took their
turn; his eldest son Thomas, Viscount
Weymouth in 1818 and his fourth son
Lord William Thynne in 1830.
In 1831 his second son, Lord Henry
Frederick Thynne, and his fifth son,
Lord Edward Thynne, were elected as
members for the borough. These
were the last MPs for Weobley: when
parliament was dissolved in December
1832 the parliamentary borough ceased
to exist.
With the passing of the 1832 Reform
Act, the houses that had been used
specifically for lodging the out-of-borough
voters at election time were no longer
required. In 1844-5 the Marquis’s
agent was instructed to pull down
the vote houses. Local estimates
put the number of them at the time
as 84 but this has been thought to
be an exaggeration (Leather,
1926).
Leominster’s fame for wool became
supplemented by the high quality of
its bread. Weobley, in the post-medieval
period, was famous for its ale, so
that Leominster bread and Weobley
ale became by-words for the highest
quality of the two main ingredients
of the contemporary staple diet. The
brewing trade began to disappear shortly
after the loss of the parliamentary
borough status. Another Weobley
industry was glove making, which had
disappeared by the mid-19th
century (Phillot,
1869, p49). The last nail-maker
died in 1840 (Education
through History Group, 1972) and
an industry associated with glove
making, tanning, also disappeared
with the closing of the tannery in
1850, and another aspect of local
self-sufficiency was lost (ibid.).
|
