Brackley

For most of the period control of Brackley was disputed between the proprietary interests of the Egertons and Wenmans, on the one hand, and the natural interests of the Crews and the Lisles on the other. The Egertons had been lords of the manor since 1592, and the 2nd Earl of Bridgwater was much offended when he learnt on 13 Mar. 1660 that all but six of the corporation had already promised their votes without reference to him. His steward pointed out that the Earl did more than anyone else to ‘support your magistracy’ and that his estate paid the highest rates. ‘My lord would not appear to be denied lest it have an ill consequence’; but the corporation returned Thomas Crew, a Presbyterian Royalist, and William Lisle, an Independent, both of local families which had been substantial benefactors to the borough. In 1661 Bridgwater probably nominated Robert Spencer, a courtier of a leading Northamptonshire royalist family, while Sir William Fermor, a prominent Cavalier, stood on the interest of his cousin, Thomas, Viscount Wenman, who owned the tithes and whose family resided in the town. They were returned on one indenture, signed by the mayor (twice) and 15 others. But there was a second indenture in favour of Crew by ‘seventeen in number of the 33 burgesses to whom the right of election doth belong’. Fermor died a few days later, and on 18 July the House resolved that Crew had been duly elected.1Baker, Northants. i. 564; Northants. RO, Brackley (Ellesmere) mss 613, Phillips to Halsey, 13 Mar. 1660; 614, Halsey to Phillips, 21 Mar. 1660.

At the first general election of 1679 Bridgwater’s second son Sir William Egerton was rejected by the electorate. Wenman’s brother and successor set the taps flowing; ‘but, alas, he could get nobody to vote for him’. The two country candidates, Crew and Lisle, were returned; ‘it did not cost them above £30 apiece in all’. In August, however, the proprietary interests prevailed with the return of two court supporters, Egerton and Richard Wenman, who probably lived in the borough. There may have been a contest, but no positive evidence survives. By 1681 Crew had succeeded to the peerage, and Wenman may have agreed to divide the borough with Lisle. The corporation produced a loyal address abhorring the Rye House Plot. In 1685 Bridgwater’s elder sons found other constituencies, and Richard Wenman was returned with James Griffin, a courtier whose grandfather, the 3rd Earl of Suffolk, had married the widow of Wenman’s maternal uncle. In the new charter of 1686 Bridgwater nominated the whole corporation, including his heir as recorder. But the charter was withdrawn after the Egertons went into opposition over the repeal of the Test Act and Penal Laws, and the Roman Catholic Earl of Peterborough was appointed recorder on 8 Sept. 1688 under the new charter. Four months later, however, he was a prisoner in the Tower, and the election proceeded on the customary lines. Wenman, who had also opposed James II’s policy, probably again agreed to divide, this time with Crew’s cousin, John Parkhurst, a moderate Whig.2BL M636/32, Sir Ralph to John Verney, 10 Feb. 1679; Edmund to John Verney, 20 Feb. 1679; Beaufort mss., Ld. to Lady Worcester, 20 Feb. 1679; Baker, i. 574; London Gazette, 24 Sept. 1683; CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 189; 1687-9, p. 269.