[Editor's note. This document was scanned from an annotated typescript which was produced in the 1970s. An attempt was made to integrate additions and corrections of what was then very much work in progress but although some attempt has been made to expand the references, they have not been checked against the originals.]
1. Introduction
Whilst recognizing their relationship with their more prominent cousins in Somerset and Dorset, the general intention of this paper is to subject the Horseys of Martin to the closest possible scrutiny as representatives of the social class rather than members of one family - however distantly related. It is intended to research their origins as a minor gentry family thriving in the 16th century, to assess all available evidence regarding their role in local and national affairs their varying fortunes and their eventual eclipse in the 17th century. Specifically it is aimed firstly to estimate the extent and origins of the family's landholding at Martin and elsewhere; secondly to examine the family's political, social and economic activities and their relationships with their neighbours in the 16th century; thirdly to review possible reasons for the family's decline and fourthly to assess the livelihood and fortunes of the family following the conveyance of their estates in 1624.
2. The extent and origin of the family's landholding at Martin and elsewhere
The origins of the family's tenure of their estates at Martin must be considered in the wider context of their ancestry and of the acquisition and disposal of their estates from the mid 15th century until their conveyance by Thomas Horsley in 1624.
The Visitation of Wiltshire 1565, provides genealogical details from the early 15th century and, although initially uninformative as to the Christian name of the original ancestor who married the Romsey heiress Eleanor Wyke, is not generally disputed by more recent research and particularly by the compilers of the Victoria County History[1]. The association with Bridport mentioned in the visitation was supported by Hutchins' reference to the existence of an inscription in James I's reign in the parish church there to the memory of Thomas Horsey, son and heir of William who died in 1477[2].
In discussing the earliest known origins of this branch their possible relationship with the Dorset Horseys arises. It would be imprudent to speculate with any great confidence as to the possible point of departure from the pedigree derived from the 1628 Visitation of Dorset for the family which eventually found its home at Martin[3]. However it is possible that Thomas Horsey named with his brother John Horsey II in a deed of Richard II provides the link and who may indeed have married Eleanor Wyke.
Despite the obvious problems regarding the connection between the two branches, one must firstly recall, as Hutchins does, that the two families considered themselves related; and secondly that Bridport with its thriving trading interests is not a surprising place to find a younger son establishing himself by marriage and possibly by merchant activity.
The fortunes of this branch seem to have been established by the acquisition by William Horsey of the Romsey family inheritance in the reign of Henry VI[4]. Horsey's claim ran via by his aunt Joan Wyke, daughter of Thomas Romsey who died in 1420 and yielded an inheritance which not only included the manors of Damerham and Martin, Rockebourne, Combe Bisset and of South Damerham and West Farnham but also the manor of Marchwood near Hyther with land in Testwood and North Langley in the hundred of Redbridge and part of the town of Romsey apparently known as Romseys Horseys[5]. His son and heir Thomas, died 1477, is noted as holding leases nearby at Deane in 17 Ed. IV[6]. It is interesting to note that the Manbankes from whom the Dorset Horseys inherited Clifton had themselves gained that property from an earlier marriage with the Romseys.
Having seen the family obtain such a handsome though far flung estate we must now consider their inheritance and retention of it.
Reference to the V.C.H. suggests that the family’s residence at Martin began with John Horsey who died in l546 and who is reputedly buried. in the north aisle of Martin Parish Church[7]. The account given of his ancestry is however at variance with the Visitation of Wiltshire 1565, which states that Thomas Horsey d. 1477 was his father rather than his uncle. This problem apart, it seems clear that the establishment of the family at Martin was accompanied by a rationalisation of their estates. John Horsey, either brother or son of Thomas Horsey d. 1477 subinfuedated the manor of Marchwood to John Romsey of Tatchbury who held it at his death in 1494[8]. However the Horseys appear to have maintained some interest in the manor since John Horsey dealt with it in 1516-1517. Later his son William and his daughter in law Dorothy Ludlow finally relinquished their interests in the Romsey Redbridge area when they conveyed both Marchwood and Romseys Horseys to Sir Richard Leyster in 1537. The notion of rationalisation is further supported by the lease of 1539 by which he held the neighbouring manor of Alvediston of the Earl of Pembroke for 40 years[9]. In fact the evidence suggests a division of estates between the father John and his eldest son William who assumed the role of tenant under the Pembrokes whilst he awaited his inheritance. Finally one might note here that Dorothy Horsey nee Ludlow, having survived her husband’s decease in l569, presumably vacated the Manor House at Martin in favour of her eldest surviving son Bartholomew and was recorded in the 1576 Taxation List as dwelling at Berwick St. John (only 2 miles from Alvediston) where she was assessed at £8 and 21/4 in land, her dowager state does not appear to have been accompanied by poverty[10].
Of the other estates acquired by matrimonial manoeuvre it is as yet uncertain how long the leases at Deane, the manor of Combs Bisset or the moiety of West Farnham were held. With regard to Rockbourne it is known that this was at his death in 1556 held by Richard Cooper of whose family more will be heard later[11].
It would seem therefore that, apart from their activities to the north in the Chalke Valley, family holdings for the most part were centred on the manor of Martin and Damerham and the moiety of Damerham Parva. In our assessment of the extent of the family’s property we must examine their tenure of these manors. Both Martin and Damerham and Damerham Parva were held of the Crown until 1539 by the Abbot of Glastonbury. In Abbot Richard Beere’s terrier of 1518 John Horsey, armiger, is noted a holding six virgates, about 200 acres, in Martin and Damerham for an annual rent and knight’s service[12]. The remainder of the abbot’s tenants seem to have held their land according to the custom of the manor. In Damerham Parva the terrier notes that John Horsey held that hamlet jointly with William Servington by knight's service. This is of interest for at least two reasons. Firstly, William Servington seems to have been a member of the family whose decline is mentioned in an Appendix to Brunton’s and Pennington’s book. Members of the Long Parliament. Secondly it is interesting to note that the Servingtons conveyed their interest in Damerham Parva to the Ashleys who by 1567 were sharing it with the Horseys.
The question as to why the Horseys did not obtain the Servington moiety will be considered more fully below. In the meantime it is possible to say that the fami1y held considerable, but by no means large estates by knight’s service. Indeed when compared with the holdings of their Dorset cousins of Clifton Maybank they seem in fact rather modest.
Following the Dissolution the two manors passed to the Crown and appear to have been held briefly by Queen Catherine Parr 1541-1548 and by the Duke of Northumberland 1551-2 reverting thereafter to the Crown[13]. In 1574 in a typical piece of Elizabethan rationalisation, the Crown exchanged Martin and Damerham for the Bishop of Salisbury’s manor of Sonning in Berkshire. The Horseys therefore experienced three feudal lords before their conveyance of their estates in 1624[14].
Finally therefore in this discussion of the origin and extent of the Horsey’s landholding in Martin and Damerham, it is possible to discover dates of acquisitions (and some of dispersals) as well as making some statement as to extent. However the true value of the manors to the family can only be accurately gauged with reference to the following areas: firstly, the relationship of the Horseys with their feudal lords in the management of their holdings; secondly, the economic climate during their period of tenure; thirdly the strength of competition against the Horseys by neighbouring families and lastly the ability of the family itself to withstand such external pressures and to exploit their estates to greatest advantage. Some light may be shed on these problems when we consider the family’s decline.
3. The family's political, social and economic status during the period of their prosperity and their relationship with their neighbours
Initially we must evaluate the family’s connections by marriage.
Despite the existence of a clash between the evidence provided by the Visitation of Wiltshire 1565 and by the Visitation of Warwickshire 1619 as to which of the last two wives was the mother of Peter Horsey (who it seems reasonable to suppose was Vicar of Martin and Damerham 1535-1554) there can be little doubt as to the social standing of the family of his first wife Isabel Hussey and his third wife Edith Lyte. Both the Husseys of Shapwick near Blandord and the Lytes of Lyte’s Carey near Ilchester were prominent families in their neighbourhoods.
The union with Isabel Hussey produced two sons and two daughters the second of whom, Edith, featured in a double marriage between the Horseys and the Lytes possibly but at present very debatably in 1533. John Horsey married. Edith Lyte, daughter of John Lyte whilst his daughter Edith married a John Lyte. Reference has yet to be made to the Lyte pedigree to ascertain whether the two were one and the same. Nevertheless this marriage which in still remembered at Lyte’s Carey by the existence of the family’s crest in the great hall must represent a considerable family alliance between the Lytes and the Horseys. It is of interest to note that Edith Horsey’s daughter Dorothy married Anthony Ashley of Damerham and was thus the great grandmother of the first Earl of Shaftesbury.
Although according to the Visitation of Warwickshire John Horsey had only one son, Peter, by his second or third marriage, there is justification for looking upon him as something of a father figure effectively begetting not one pedigree but two and probably arranging a third, that of his daughter Edith. With regard to the Lyte marriage, it is noteworthy that the Horseys of Martin were allying themselves with a neighbour of their Dorset kinsmen. Indeed during the 1560s or 70s a member of that branch of the family, Elizabeth Horsey, married a member of the Mohun family, themselves closely related to the Lytes. At the time of his death John Horsey could not have foreseen that his nuptial activity would produce 11 grandchildren six of whom were girls – more if the family tree hypothesis is accepted (see section 4). Such a quiverful of descendants may well have been not only a cause for rejoicing but also perhaps have had a debilitating effect upon family fortunes.
A direct connection with the Clifton Maybank branch comes to light in the will of Sir John Horsey of Clifton dated 9 April 1588. By this will "my kinsman and servant Hannibal Horsey" is bequeathed an annuity of £20 out of South Perrott and Cary Fitzpaine. It seems probably that, since the name Hannibal appears twice in the Martin pedigree and does not appear in the Dorset pedigree, this was John Horsey’s grandson by one of his later marriages, Peter Horsey the presumed rector of Damerham and Martin 1535-1554 being his father. It is of note that this will also refers to "my late kinsman Sir Edward Horsey", Captain of the Isle of Wight, and ‘the great cuppe of silver gilt’ which he had given to Sir John. There seems therefore to be good evidence of strong connections between the different branches of the family.
The marriage of William, John Horsey's son and heir, with Dorothy Ludlowe established a dynastic alliance with a local family whose importance in the area outlived the Horseys. The Ludlowes of Hill Deverill (now a deserted village, near Warminster) were a family of some substance. In 1545 George Ludlowe was assessed at 40/- (the figure for John Horsey was £16 13s. 4d.) In 1576 Edmund Ludlowe was assessed at £10 and 26s. 8d. in land (Bartholomew Horsey was assessed at £20 and 53s. 4d. also in land) [15]. Both families were the wealthiest in their respective parishes. Although, therefore the Horseys seem to have been of greater substance than the Ludlowes, Edward Ludlowe of Hill Deverell was Sheriff of Wiltshire in 1585[16].
We must now turn to the territorial implications of the Ludlowe marriage. Whilst Hill Deverill is an appreciable distance from Martin, the distance between the land holding of the Ludlowes and the Horseys was bridged by William and Dorothy Horsey’s holdings in the Alvediston - Berwick St John area[17].
William Horsey’s five Star Chamber Cases in c.1540, involving the Manor of Easton Bassett and giving evidence of heated and physical conflict over its tenure, provide the earliest date yet of the fami1y’s association with the area around Berwick St John. These suggest that William, like his son Bartholomew at Tarrant Gunville, established himself elsewhere whilst awaiting his inheritance of the family’s main property. We are able to say that this association with Berwick St. John lasted at least until 1596 when Bartholomew Horsey bequeathed 6s. 8d. to the poor of that parish in his will. It is yet to be discovered whether the case involving William Horsey and Sir Walter Hungerford over his abuse of office as sheriff is related to the Easton Bassett litigation. Easton Bassett, for which Court Rolls feature in PRO lists for 25-26 Henry VIII (as well as 48-49 Henry III) is in the parish of Berwick St John.
In this area they do not however seem to be entirely dependent upon their tenancy of the Pembroke’s manor at Alvediston. In 1563, it is recorded in the Calendar of Feet of Fines of Wiltshire that the manor of Upton, messuages, lands, rents in Barwyke St John were transferred to William Lovedays and Robert Woodshawe, gentleman, by William Horsey, armiger, and Dorothy his wife[18]. As we have seen Dorothy, William’s widow, is to be found in 1576 living in comfortable circumstances at Berwick St John[19]. This territorial and marital link between the Ludlowes and Horseys is underlined by the latter family’s role in local government in the second half of the sixteenth century.
There are a number of indications regarding the status of the family in local affairs. It may be significant that the Horsey’s pedigree was the only one noted by Colt Hoare for the whole hundred of South Damerham - an area including not only Martin and Damerham but extending from Damerham Parva in the south to Compton Chamberlain in the north[20]. In their own village of’ Martin the extension of the north aisle of the church into a transept ending in a family chapel complete with squint is attributed to John Horsey d. 1546[21]. It seems reasonable to assume that Peter Horsey (the rector 1535-1554) was the son of John Horsey by his second or third marriage. If so his, the last appointment to the rectory of Martin by the abbot of Glastonbury, surely presented a neat solution to the problem of a career for a gentleman’s younger son. Within their parish the family for a short while held the two bastions of power, the rectory and the manor house, as parson and squire.
Beyond the parish there is evidence of further responsibilities. John Horsey was Sheriff of Wiltshire in 1529[22]. Whilst no evidence of his or his son William’s service as JP has yet been found, we know that his grandson Bartholomew, lord of the manor 1569-1596 was included in the justices' commission between 1579 and 1587[23]. Neither of the family’s future rivals the Ashleys and the Coopers sat with him in Wiltshire sessions since Wimborne St Giles lay in Dorset and Rockbourne in Hampshire. The Earl of Pembroke was a consistent fellow attender at sessions. Two points seem particularly worthy of attention. Firstly in the record of Epiphany Sessions 1587 held in Salisbury there is a reference to the Dorset branch of the family when the case of one Thomas Haule of Horses Melcombe, Co. Dorset was considered[24]. Secondly, and as a more general point, it comes as something of a revelation to note the distance afield that his duties as a J.P. took Bartholomew Horsey in his own "country" of Wiltshire. Salisbury was of course the venue for sessions one might expect yet he is noted frequently at Warminster and twice, the St Thomas Session of 1580 and the Easter Session of 1587, at Devizes. This involvement beyond his own locality is perhaps explained by his connection with the Ludlowe family and possibly tells us something of his prominence in country affairs. It would also seem especially relevant when the family’s role in the defence preparations against the Armada is considered. On the other hand it may simply be that the sessions were held in several different places for the convenience of suitors.
The family’s role in the local arrangements for defence against the Armada raises a number of questions. At present we are merely able to state that on 11 April 1588 Bartholomew Horsey contributed £25 to the defence of the Spanish Invasion[25].
Before discussing his possible role in local defence we must digress to note that the parish of Martin and Damerham seems to be more logically related to the seaboard counties of Hampshire and Dorset than to Wiltshire - indeed the parish was eventually transferred to Hampshire in 1895[26].
Within this context two arrangements for local defence may be suggested, the one probable the other possible. Firstly the area of Martin and Damerham would probably have been considered as a part of Wiltshire. In this case, given Bartholomew Horsey’s age and his experience as a J.P. his family connections with the Ludlowes one might expect that he would have been prominently involved in the hectic preparations of the late 1570s and the 1580s. It may be worthwhile to note that the natural leader by rank in South Wiltshire, the second Earl of Pembroke, had been nominated out of the county as Lord Lieutenant of Somerset[27].
Secondly, Martin and Damerham could possibly have been placed in the area controlled by Sir Henry Ashley of Wimborne St Giles who had since l572 held an appointment as one of ten commanders to raise bodies of militia in Dorset. In 1584 he was one of five commanders - among them were Sir Richard Rogers, Thomas Howard, and notably Sir John Horsey of’ Clifton Maybank and Melcombe Horsey. Sir Henry's muster-point at Badbury Rings would have been strategically convenient for levies from Martin and Damerham[28].
The whole subject is obviously very relevant in a consideration of the family’s status in the late sixteenth century. Its obscurity may well be alleviated by reference to Acts of the Privy Council and to State Papers. Extracts from Longleat Papers[29] apparently suggest that Bartholomew Horsey was appointed to take charge of the southern division of Wiltshire. This area was composed of one Hundred of South Damerham as well as among other places, Mere, Heytesbury, Hindon, Knoy1e and the Deverills. Significantly Hill Deverill was the home of his mother’s family the Ludlowes.
Bartholomew’s responsibilities included the erection and maintenance of beacons to spread intelligence of the Armada’s approach. Knighton Ashes on the southern side of the Chalke Valley is said by Aubrey to hate been "sea-marke". Pembury Hill, now called Pembury Knoll, between Martin and Penbridge was a beacon-site during the Napoleonic Wars. Both may well have been beacon-sites under Bartholomew Horsey’s control.
We must now turn our attention to the economic situation of the family in the sixteenth century. This area is fraught with problems in reply to which there neither exists excess of evidence nor at this stage many clear leads.
It is for instance possible to compare the assessment on John Horsey for the 1545 benevolence with that on his grandson Bartholomew for the 1576 subsidy[30]. John Horsey’s assessment for £6 13s. 4d. at 1s. 8d. in the pound on income derived from land indicates an estimated income of £80 per annum. Bartho1emew Horsey's assessment for £20 at 2s. 8d. in the pound indicates an estimated income in the order of £158 per annum. An apparent increase of 100% might suggest that the family was riding the storms of sixteenth century inflation with some success.
It may also be of significance that no record has yet been found of the family’s making any gains via the Court of Augmentations following the Dissolution. As we have seen control by Glastonbury was replaced by that of the Crown or its beneficiaries and later by the Bishops of Salisbury. Failure to gain from the Dissolution where others such as the Herberts succeeded may provide an early indication of weakness in the family’s position.
Questions of particular interest arise out of the conditions of the Horsey’s tenure under their succession of feudal lords. Did the Horseys at any time act as stewards as well as lessees of the manor and if so did they alone profit from rising copyhold entry fines? Indeed to what extent did they assume the role of "Lords farmers" as outlined by F. Kerridge in his article on "The Movement of Rent"? What was the pattern of increase in rent paid during the family’s tenure of Martin and Damerham? How did this pattern compare with the trends on Herbert estates generally and at Alvediston in particular? Were the family enjoying greater profits and greater independence of management under the Crown and under the Bishops of Salisbury? On the other hand it is possible that the exchange of 1574 transferring control of the manor from a distant to a nearer authority adversely affected the Horseys' freedom of action in the manor. Since the Horseys farmed directly and at times, according to the terrier of 1518, encroached upon land to which their title was obscure, they as producers must surely have profited from the price rise and as tenants been untroubled by the fact that Wiltshire leases are thought to have been larger than the average[31]. Conversely if the family were acting as stewards of the manor returning fixed rents and entry fines to their feudal lords, long leases would have limited the family’s opportunity to profit from such a stewardship.
At present it would seem that the prosperous economic circumstances were enjoyed by the family during the sixteenth century. Such conclusions are to ay the least extremely tentative. Further evidence in the form of Court Books of the manor might well answer some of the social, and economic queries associated with the family’s status as tenants of a succession of feudal lords and provide clues to some of the problems raised by their precipitate decline in the early seventeenth century.
Apart from Abbot Beere’s terrier of 1518 the following manorial documents registered by the Royal Commission of Historic Manuscripts may well assist this line of enquiry:
- South Damerham Court Rolls, 1543-47 in PRO (General series)
- Damerham with Martin & Tidpit Court Rolls 1609-12, 1684-5, 1706-10, 1714-1921 in the 1950s with Jacksons, solicitors, Fordingbridge.
The later rolls may well provide information on later generations of the family in the area.
From a social point of view one wonders whether there was any distinction between those feudal tenants whose lord was the Crown and those to whom land had been sub-infeudated by a tenant-in-chief. Did the Horseys enjoy greater power and prestige in their neighbourhood because the Crown and he Bishop of Salisbury were either more distantly or less intimately concerned with the running of their manors?
It is noteworthy that the Horseys who served alongside the Pembrokes were their tenants at Alvediston whilst after 1574 at least both families held land of the Bishop of Salisbury. One might suggest that social and political status was less dependent upon the technicalities of sub-infeudation but rather that the enjoyment of prestige and the performance of responsibilities in local society fell upon those who not only held but also personally occupied the manors concerned.
We must now compare the status of the family during the sixteenth century with its three prominent neighbours the Herberts, the Ashleys and the Coopers deployed around Martin in triangular fashion with the Herberts at the apex in Wilton. As far as we know the arrivals of the families in the area were either contemporary with or later than the Horsey’s arrival. Richard Cooper the first of a family to settle at Rockbourne died in 1556[32]. Sir Henry Ashley 15l9-l588 appears to have been the first Ashley to have settled at Wimborne St Giles[33]. William Herbert (brother in law of’ Queen Catherine Parr) was granted the abbey and lands of Wilton by the king in 1544[34]. Despite the arrival of these men whose successors would eventually eclipse the Horseys it seems at present a reasonable assumption to say that during the sixteenth century the family stood its ground both socially and economically.
There are however certain signs heralding the family's seventeenth century decline. Firstly, we can perhaps not see as significant the fact that the Horseys did not purchase the Servington Moiety in Damerham Parva but instead allowed the more prosperous Ashleys to supersede the Servington family, their fading fellow tenants[35]. Secondly note must be taken of the purchase from the Crown in 1554 by the newly ennobled Earl of Pembroke of the advowson of Martin[36]. These two facts perhaps support the notion that the new arrivals were establishing themselves in areas which the Horseys might have hoped to dominate.
Mention of the Servington moiety provides us with a logical clue for recording the arrival of Anthony Ashley, younger brother of Sir Henry Ashley (1519-1588) in Damerham. This is likely to have been after 1545 since Anthony Ashley’s name does not appear in the list of contributors to the benevolence of that year. Although one finds the names of John and Bernard Ayschley in Abbot Richard Beere’s terrier of 1518 as customary tenants of the manor, they do not appear on the pedigree published by Hutchins. The newcomer’s status in Damerham appear to have been matched by one Oliver Horsey - the first member of the family to use that Christian name. In the taxation list of 1576 for Damerham Oliver Horsey, gentleman was assessed at £5 and 8s. 4d. in goods whilst Anthony Ashley gentleman was assessed at £5 and 13s. 4d. in land. In passing it might be helpful to recall that Bartholomew esquire, was assessed at £20 and 53s. 4d. in land in the sane subsidy list[37]. The exact relationship of Oliver Horsey to the rest of the family is open to speculation since he is missing from the Visitation of 1565. The most likely explanation would seem to be that he was the son of Thomas Horsey (second son of John Horsey died 1546). Anthony Ashley apparently offered no competition to the Horsey in Martin and Damerham and indeed eventua1ly married John Horsey’s grand-daughter Dorothy Lyte. This match with a cadet branch of a prominent office-holding family was transformed when Anthony Ashley’s nephew Sir Henry II died without male heir[38]. In an attempt to prevent the succession of his estates to the issue of his daughter Anne and Sir John Cooper, Sir Anthony married when just 80 years old, Philippa Sheldon aged 20, in the vain hope of a son and heir.
In consequence, Anthony Ashley’s descendants united the family’s holdings at Damerham and Wimborne St Giles[39]. Their subsequent prosperity, assisted as we shall see on external sources derived from the career of’ Sir Anthony Ashley in the service of the Crown, was continued when Sir Anthony’s daughter Anne, the mother of the first Earl of Shaftesbury, married Sir John Cooper in about 1622, consolidating the already extensive holdings of the two families into the massive Ashley Cooper estate.
Although this is rather a cursory treatment of three families of considerable importance we may note firstly that the Herberts made gains in areas which were of interest to the family; secondly that the Ashleys having secured a foothold in Damerham were able by chance in the form of Sir Henry’s daughters, by external means apparently not available to the Horseys, and by the shrewd matrimonial alliance with the Coopers, to eclipse the Horseys who, as we shall see, were by end of the sixteenth century weakened by their family squabbles. The Horseys therefore did no more than maintain their position whilst their neighbours gained such strength as to be able to fill the vacuum created by their decline in the early l7C.
4. The family’s decline
"Hush--don't be so silly, Jacky," said his wife [Joan Durbeyfield]. "Yours is not the only family that was of 'count in wold days. Look at the Anktells, and Horseys, and the Tringhams themselves--gone to seed a'most as much as you--though you was bigger folks than they, that's true."Thomas Hardy Tess of the Durbevilles, ch. 4.
We must refer to the family-tree hypothesis before reviewing the available evidence of the family’s decline in the early seventeenth century and of the progress of their neighbours in improving their fortunes. The hypothesis which is based upon evidence of wills and at that stage upon two assumptions (see pedigree and notes), suggests that two distinct branches of the family can be traced to Martin and Damerham at the beginning of the seventeenth century. Both branches of the fami1y were descended from John Horsey’s first marriage to Isabel Hussey of Shapwick. The grand-children of his second fruitful marriage seem all to have dispersed – two at least to Warwickshire, one to Ireland, and one to London - no trace has yet been found to indicate that any members of this side of the family remained in Martin or its environs. The two branches can be summarised briefly as follows: firstly of the children of Bartholomew Horsey’s first marriage (to Elizabeth Devenish) two were daughters and his only son Thomas who died in 1628 leaving his daughter Frances to prove his will; secondly Bartholomew and Robert apparently grandsons of Thomas Horsey, younger brother of William (1506-1564). The latter branch via the younger grandson Robert continued the family name in the neighbourhood.
It seems probable that Bartholomew Horsey who died in 1621 is one of the sons of his cousin Oliver mentioned by Bartholomew Horsey I who died in 1596 and that Robert Horsey who died in 1627 was the other. Mention of Robert by Bartholomew II in his will and his son Oliver, carrying on the fami1y name supports this hypothesis. Equally one must assume that Frances Bartholomew I's second wife had no children by him. Certainly none are mentioned in her husband’s will in 1596.
Bartholomew II's will carries no mention of Martin or of Thomas Horsey who died in 1627. Although reference is made to dwelling and tenements at Damerham there seems to have been a movement towards Alderholt and Cranborne. The bequest of his land and tenement to his wife Margaret at Bulhill and on her decease to his daughter Elizabeth emphasises this. It may be relevant to note that today Lower Hulhill Farm lies two miles south of Damerham at National Grid reference SU108139.
It is open to conjecture that the continued tenure of the family’s estates may well have been affected by bad relations between Thomas Horsey and his cousins Bartholomew and Oliver. Certainly the will of Bartholomew senior (d. 1596) intimates this when he refers to the possibility of Oliver Horssey and his two tons being troubled by his son Thomas Horsey. Furthermore tangible evidence is found in Chancery proceedings following Bartholomew’s death in 1596[40].
Bartholomew Horsey’s will of 1596 provides evidence of this rift in the family. By comparison with his sister Judith, Thomas Horsey, the eldest child and only son, is poorly provided for. Indeed the will seems to suggest a division of the estate which weakened Thomas’s position; laying down measures to be taken by the executors should he interfere with Oliver and his two sons in the enjoyment of a lease of Lopshill. We must note that this name appears on the Ordnance Survey map of 1811 as Lobsell and on modern O. S. maps as Lopshill, situated two miles SSW of Damerham at National Grid reference SU090137. Their inheritance bolstered the fortunes of the descendants of Bartholomew under Thomas who carried on the family name in the neighbourhood. Finally it is significant perhaps that his cousin Oliver Horsey and not his son Thomas Horsey was one of the witnesses to Bartholomew’ will.
John Hill Esquire and Frances his wife, late wife of Bartholomew Horsey, appeared as plaintiffs with Sir Anthony Ashley and Thomas Horsey as defendants in litigation over a meadow in the parish of Damerham formerly part of the Bartholomew Horsey estate. Family politics may have prevented the transference of his estates by Thomas Horsey in 1624 to another member of the family.
Thomas Horsey’s will is solely concerned with the settlement of his debt of £200 owing to one Christopher Earle by the transference to him of a bond under which Sir John Cooper Knight and Baronet is to "pay the some of two hundred pounds after my death unto such person and persons as I the said Thomas Horsey shall […] appoint". No mention is made of his daughter Frances who apparently proved -the will. The will is significant for the fol1owing reasons:
1) The amount bequeathed is considerably less than that bequeathed by Bartholomew Horsey I in 1596.
2) No bequests other than the £200 bond are made and there is no reference to his daughter Frances.
3) Although there were a number of relatives alive in 1627 none are mentioned in the will. Furthermore there is no reference to Thomas in Bartholomew Horsey II’s will of 1621.
4) Whilst his will describes Thomas as being late of Damerham, the document was witnessed by a prominent local figure of Beveridge between Tidpit and Cranborne.
Finally, the overall impression from the will is one of a rift in the family and a decline of wealth on the part of its senior member who, having disposed of his estates, could find the only remedy for his debts in the heavily encumbered estate of Sir John Cooper. The association with Sir John Cooper and Sir Anthony Ashley who must have been his contemporaries indicated by this will and the Chancery case following Bartholomew Horsey I’s death in 1596 suggest a relationship which might be relevant in explaining Thomas’s latter vicissitudes.
It is possible that Christopher Earle was a member of the family or indeed families whose members included Sir Walter Earle MP for Hampshire in the Short Parliament and John Earle, rector of a Wiltshire parish and a fellow of’ Merton College Oxford who in June 1641 was appointed tutor to the Prince of Wales. [41]
Instead the estates were conveyed to Richard Yardley and William Smith - both local men whose names appear under Martin and Damerham during 1639-44. Indeed the name of one Giles Yardley who was churchwarden in 1666 is still to be seen on one of the bells in the Damerham peal. [42] The V.C.H. is obscure regarding Sir John Cooper’s acquisition of the estates. Court Rolls of the Court Leet [43] show perhaps significantly that the Lord of the Manor in 1609 and l6l2 was Sir Anthony Ashley.
The extent of Sir John Cooper’s estates are evident from the Inquisition Post Mortem following his death in 1626. He died possessed inter alia of the manors of Rockbourne and Fordingbridge, the manor of Whitabury, the manor of Martyn and the land thereto belonging with the rectory and tithes of Damerham, lands at Downton, Damerham South, the manor of Wimborne St Giles, Wimborne French and Wimborne Allhallows, to all of which Anthony Ashley Cooper was son and heir.
His encumbered state was underlined by the lengthy law-suit which his creditors brought against his heir. EHLP [reference unverified] suggests that this situation was brought about by gambling but appears to offer no direct evidence. Whatever the case it would seem that Thomas Horsey having conveyed his estates to Sir John Cooper was at his death in 1627 dependent upon the result of the legal proceedings against Sir John's estate to settle with his main creditor Christopher Earle.
We can note however that the taxation roll of 1639-44 records the name of Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper amongst those assessed for Martin and that John Aubrey writing after the Restoration refers to Earl of Shaftesbury’s house at Martin with a chapel laid with tiles bearing the arms of Horsey [44].
These taxation records - initially it seems for Ship Money - indicate the comparative decline of the surviving branch of the family and the dominance of their former neighbour within the manor they once held. Under Martin one notes for instance that Sir Anthony Ashley Cooper paid £6 l5s. 0d. whereas Mr. Horsey paid 6s. 9d. Again "the Baronett Cooper" paid £4 16s. 0d. whilst Oliver Horsey paid £l 4s. 0d. In South Damerham Robert Hoseey was assessed at £4 8s. 0d. whilst no less a person than the "Hon. Denzil Holles" was assessed at £l2. In passing it is worth recording that Holles married Dorothy Ashley niece of Sir Anthony Ashley (died 1627) and great-great-grand-daughter of John Horsey (died 1546) [45]. Amongst her descendants were the Dukes of Newcastle. Finally in 1648 for an "Assessment for the Relief of Ireland" the Lady Ashlie, now living in the manor house at Martin, was to pay 4s. 2d. whilst Oliver Horsey was assessed at 7d. Thus although the Horsey’s supremacy in Martin and Damerham was clearly at an end before the Civil War, their decline was relative rather than absolute. Our discussion of some of the family’s activities after the Restoration supports this view. Against this somewhat depressing background the Horseys' neighbours prospered. We know of the Herberts' gains from the Dissolution and in view of the career of Sir Henry Ashley 1519-1588 it seems unlikely that the Ashleys were not beneficiaries [46]. Furthermore we know that both the Ashleys and the Pembrokes held office under the Crown as well as performing their obligations in the local community [47]. The Pembrokes seem to have been regular occupants of high office: among the Ashleys the most noteworthy example Sir Anthony, disgraced after Cadiz in 1599, had been Clerk of the Privy Council prior to the expedition and resumed that office in James I’s reign, Famous for his wealth, (as well as his alleged introduction of the cabbage to England) there are parallels between Sir Anthony and Thomas Freake of Shroton near Blandford. Both owed much of their wealth of office-holding at court; Robert Freake his father was one of Elizabeth’s Tellers of the Exchequer, and both their families superseded non-office holding families in their estates [48]. In the case of the Freakes these were the Dorset Horseys. Both Sir Anthony's tomb at Wimborne St Giles and Thomas Freke’s at Shroton celebrate in no uncertain manner the wealth of their respective families and the prestige of those, including in the Freakes' case the Dorset Horseys, into whom they married. Having mentioned the chance by which the Damerham and Wimborne St Giles estates were united and the shrewd marriage which formed the Ashley Cooper alliance of the estates south of Martin, it is not surprising that shortly after its conveyance to Yardley and Smith the estate should pass into the hands of Sir John Cooper to add to his already impressive block of territory.
In conclusion therefore the reasons for the family’s decline are at present the subject of surmise. Evidence of personal weakness in terms of financial ineptitude or a taste for excessive pleasures has yet to come to light. It is however possible to infer that a multiplicity of heirs from the three marriages of Bartholomew Horsey put a strain on the family's modest resources. Paradoxically however although near-relations and even his half-brother Thomas Horsey and his wife conveyed the estate out of the family for the apparent reason they had no children of their own. Family quarrels between the descendants of Bartholomew Horsey (died 1596) must surely be taken into account in explaining this. Despite their established position the family did not reinforce their position at the Dissolution or by office-holding as did their neighbours. In these circumstances their neighbours whose estates were of equal if not greater extent, whose resources of wealth were certainly more diverse and whose luck seems to have been better were able at first to encroach upon and then in the seventeenth century to move in to fill the vacuum created by the Horsey’s decline.
5. The status of the family following the conveyance of its estates
After the death of Thomas Horsey in 1627 the main branch of the family was that derived from Bartholomew Horsey’s marriage with his second wife Frances. Evidence indicates that his grandson Oliver Horsey was established at nearby Tidpit in a condition substantial enough for his own grandson Oliver born 1657 to go up to University College, Oxford in 1675 [49]. This grandson took his B. A. in 1673 and his M. A. in the Exclusionist year of 1681[50].
At this point the intriguing question of the influence of the Ashley Coopers deserves attention. The allegiance of the area during the Civil War was probably dictated by Sir Anthony and complicated by the transfer of his loyalties to Parliament at the end of 1643. Later although the advowson of Wimborne St Giles was in the Crown’s possession, the appointment in 1684 of their neighbour and distant relative Oliver Horsey would probably not have been made without the approval of the Shaftesburys[51]. Oliver Horsey remained as incumbent until 1712 and was a near contemporary of the third Earl whose tutor John Locke is known to have been a frequent visitor to Wimborne St Giles[52]. All that is known of Oliver’s son William at present is that he attended Locke’s old school, Westminster, from 1708 to 1711. The family line was continued locally by Oliver Horsey’s younger brother Robert, born in 1659[53]. Thereafter the family seems to have declined into rural obscurity. The Manor House with its chapel tiles annealed with the arms and quarterings of Horsey passed from the ownership of the Shaftesburys through stages of dereliction and partial obliteration to acquire a new identity as Dennett’s Farm and to be occupied, until its recent resuscitation in name though not in function, as two farm cottages[54]. At Tidpit however the family is still remembered by a field called Horsey’s piece whilst their descendants were to be found in Fordingbridge as wheelwrights, at Blandford as butchers by the beginning of the twentieth century. By this time greater social mobility and in particular the London South Western Railway had permitted some members of the family to stray far beyond its native heath.
Finally we might reflect on the overall value of such a study as this, as yet limited and incomplete, into individual gentry families. Most obviously one is forced to admit that vast volumes of similar research remain to be undertaken before achieving a remotely comprehensive picture of gentry fortunes from which some conclusion as to the political motives of the gentry can be deduced. Although typical cases of the gentry’s varying conditions are as impossible to isolate in reality as the average man, the story of the Horseys of Martin gives evidence of many socio-economic themes repeated with innumerable variations on a country wide scale in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. A satisfactory answer to problems relating to the role of the gentry in the period can only be produced when these variations are examined objectively and their implications assessed.
2. John Hutchins, The history and antiquities of the county of Dorset, ii p.27 - 8 refers to M.S. Harl. 1427 fol. 21b.
3. Pedigree of Horsey of Clifton Maybank.
4. Victoria County History Hants iv.
5. Sir Richard Colt Hoare, History of modern Wiltshire, Alderbury 24.
6. John Hutchins, The history and antiquities of the county of Dorset, iv p. 426-430.
7. E. H. Lane Poole, Damerham and Martin: a study in local history. Will of John Horsey d. 1545.
8. Victoria County History, Hants iv. p. 553-4.
9. Sir Richard Colt Hoare, History of modern Wiltshire, Chalke 56.
10. G.D. Ramsay (editor), Two sixteenth century taxation lists 1545 and 1576 (Wiltshire Archaeological Society, 1954) .
11. John Hutchins, The history and antiquities of the county of Dorset, iii p.594.
12. Sir Richard Colt Hoare, History of modern Wiltshire, Ch. 3.
13. Notes for History of’ Damerham by E. H. Moule deposited in Hampshire Record Office, Winchester. Also E. H. Lane Poole, Damerham and Martin: a study in local history.
14. Sir Richard Colt Hoare, History of modern Wiltshire, Ch. 3 mentions Exchange Grant 1574.
15. G.D. Ramsay (editor), Two sixteenth century taxation lists 1545 and 1576 (Wiltshire Archaeological Society, 1954) .
16. Wiltshire archaeological and natural history magazine, Vol. 3.
17. Sir Richard Colt Hoare, History of modern Wiltshire, Chalke 56.
18. Wiltshire notes and queries, 1905 - 1907 p. 175.
19. G.D. Ramsay (editor), Two sixteenth century taxation lists 1545 and 1576 (Wiltshire Archaeological Society, 1954), p. 135.
20. Sir Richard Colt Hoare, History of modern Wiltshire, vol. 3 p.5. South Damerham 42.
21. Sir Richard Colt Hoare, History of modern Wiltshire, vol. 3 p.5. South Damerham 42.
22. PRO. Sheriff Lists.
23. Will of Wil1iam Horsey 47 PRO PROB11/53/558 Register Holney dated 1571. Martin Parish Registers 1596.
24. H. C. Johnson (editor), Wiltshire County Records: Minutes of Proceedings in Sessions 1563 and 1574 to 1592 (Wiltshire Archaeological and Natural History Society, Records Branch, Volume IV for the Year 1948) .
25. T.C. Noble, The names of those persons who subscribed towards the defence of this country at the time of the Spanish Armada, 1588, (Alfred Russell Smith, 1886) .
26. Victoria County History Hants: iv, p. 588-9.
27. Rachel Lloyd, Dorset Elizabethans, p.l75.
28. Rachel Lloyd, Dorset Elizabethans, p.166-8.
29. Printed in Wiltshire archaeological and natural history magazine, vol. 14, p. 241.
30. G.D. Ramsay (editor), Two sixteenth century taxation lists 1545 and 1576 (Wiltshire Archaeological Society, 1954) .
31. J. Burnett, A history of the cost of living.
32. Cooper pedigree in John Hutchins, The history and antiquities of the county of Dorset, Vol iii. p. 594.
33. Ashley pedigree in John Hutchins, The history and antiquities of the county of Dorset.
34. Guide to Wilton House.
35. Sir Richard Colt Hoare, History of modern Wiltshire, Vol. iii. South Damerham, p. 42.
36. Sir Richard Colt Hoare, History of modern Wiltshire, Vol. iii. South Damerham.
37. G.D. Ramsay (editor), Two sixteenth century taxation lists 1545 and 1576 (Wiltshire Archaeological Society, 1954) .
38. John Hutchins, The history and antiquities of the county of Dorset, vol. iii, p. 594.
39. Rachel Lloyd, Dorset Elizabethans, p. 201-2.
40. Chancery Proceedings Eliz H. 63 53 [sic] .
41 Ref: C.V.Wedgewood The King's peace, p. 298, 403-4, 434.
42. Extract from notes for History of Damerham by E. H. Moule deposited in Hampshire Record Office, Winchester.
43. Held by Jacksons Solicitors Fordingbridge and noted by E.L.P. in 1952.
44. Quoted in Wiltshire archaeological and natural history magazine, vol. 36, 37, 38.
45. Expanded Visitation of Wiltshire 1565.
46. Guide to Wilton House.
47. Rachel Lloyd, Dorset Elizabethans, p. 201-2.
48. Rachel Lloyd, Dorset Elizabethans, p.92.
49. Martin Parish Records.
50. Joseph Foster. Alumni oxonienses.
51. Joseph Foster. Alumni oxonienses.
52. Guide to Wimborne St Giles Parish Church.
53. Records of Westminster School.
54. Mrs. M. Whitelegg (spoken evidence) .
This page last updated 30 March 2016
