A HISTORY OF BEDFORDSHIRE 



liberty.' """ There is extant evidence of the issue of writs for the Parlia- 

 ments of 1254, 1 26 1, 1265, and 1283, but no returns exist which certainly 

 belong to any of them. In 1 290 there is a single writ for Bedfordshire and 

 Buckinghamshire,""' and from this time on, with occasional exceptions, the 

 returns as well as the writs are extant. The names of the members for 

 the shire are almost always recognizable as belonging to the larger sub- 

 tenants or the smaller tenants in chief of landed estates. During the 

 13th century the title miles is never affixed; in the next century it often 

 occurs, but no argument as to the member's status can be based on its 

 presence or absence."' That a knight of the shire need not be a knight in 

 strictness seems clear from the entry of Roger de Bray in 13 12-13 ^^^^ ^^^ 

 addition loco militis}^^^ 



From 1295 onward two members appear regularly from the borough of 

 Bedford, and they may often be identified as resident burgesses mentioned in 

 contemporary records or deeds. The borough members and county members 

 represent absolutely distinct classes ; the former have generally names that 

 suggest their occupation : as Wright, Baker, Braser, Spycer, Peyntour, le 

 Cook ; or their calling is added, as Richard atte Holt, bocher, Rogerus 

 Barker, bocher ; and when the family names do occur, with the exception of an 

 occasional Pever or Costentin, they are not the names of families known to hold 

 land in the county. Such is the case till the end of the reign of Edward IV. 



The only other borough besides Bedford that has ever returned a member 

 is Dunstable. In 131 1 a writ was issued, but no return was made ; in 13 12 

 two members were returned,""" and this is the only occasion on which the 

 borough has ever been represented. 



Amongst the fragmentary notices of Bedfordshire in the 1 4th century is 

 one of special interest. In the very full and interesting account of the ' Good 

 Parliament ' of i 376 given by the chronicle of a monk of St. Albans, two 

 Bedfordshire men are mentioned. When the king demanded an aid from the 

 Commons, the knights of the shires asked that a committee of four bishops, 

 four earls, and four barons might be sent to confer with them, and one of 

 the barons selected was Roger de Beauchamp.""' They then determined to 

 demand redress of grievances and to refuse to vote money until their demand 

 was acceded to, and they gained confidence for their difficult task from an 

 unexpected source. 



One of the knights of the shire, Thomas de la Hoo, who can have 

 been no other than Thomas atte Hoo, member for Bedfordshire,"^ told them 



'''" Ret. ofMemb. of Pari. 



^^ Ibid. The names of four knights are endorsed on it without specifying which county each repre- 

 sented. The Parliamentary Return assigns to Beds. Thomas de Bray and Reginald de Beauchamp, and to 

 Bucks. William de Turvyll and John de PateshuU. Unless this adjustment be founded upon some good 

 evidence not quoted, it may be well to suggest that Reginald de Beauchamp is a name unknown to Beds, 

 whereas he held property in Bucks, in 1284 {Feud. Jids, i, 76) ; while John de PateshuU, who held property 

 in both counties, had his chief seat at Bletsoe in Beds., and they should probably be interchanged. 



'™ For instance in the Parliament of July 1 3 1 3 ' Petrus le Loring ' and ' David de Fletwyk ' appear ; in 

 the September Parliament of the same year ' Petrus le Loryng miles ' and ' David de Flitwyk miles ' ; and in 

 that of September 1 3 1 4 ' Petrus Loreng.' Ret.ofMemb.o/Parl. '^ Ibid. 



'°°'' Ibid. The return is unfortunately damaged, and the surnames are not wholly legible ; one was John 

 de Wo . . ., the other William L . n . . ot. 



'^■^ His connexion with the county came through his marriage with the eldest daughter of the last male 

 PateshuU, by which he acquired the manor of Bletsoe. He belonged to a branch of the Worcestershire and 

 Warwickshire Beauchamps. 



'" Ret. ofMemb. of Pari. He was probably the father, certainly the ' antecessor ' of Thomas Lord Hoo. 



34 



