Banbury

In the mid-seventeenth century two factors gave Banbury a prominence beyond its size and wealth: its geographical position and its religious reputation. Not only was it at the centre of a topographically distinct region comprising parts of three counties but, standing at the junction of major routes, it had considerable commercial significance in time of peace and military significance in time of war.1 VCH Oxon. x. 5, 7. By the early years of the century it was widely known as an entrepôt for the south midlands wool trade and was celebrated for its cheese and cakes.2 VCH Oxon. x. 6; J. Taylor, The honorable and memorable foundations … of divers cities, townes, castles (1636), sig. D4.2v; T. Cogan, The haven of health (1636), 183-4; G. Markham, The English Housewife (1631), 129-30; CSP Dom. 1637-8, p. 365. It was also proverbial for its tinkers and notorious for its puritanism.3 J Howell, Paroimiographia Proverbs, or, Old sayed savves & adages in English (1659), 14; J. Taylor, Oxford beseiged, surprised, taken, and pittifully entered (1645), 7. Ben Jonson was not alone in finding a rich vein of dramatic humour and a stock of metaphors in the town’s pious inhabitants, encapsulated in his character Zeal-of-the-Land-Busy; the casual scorn of William Davenant, brought up just over twenty miles away in the very different city of Oxford, perhaps hit particularly hard.4 B. Jonson, Bartholomew Fair (1631); T Nabbes, Covent Garden a pleasant comedie (1638), 45; W. Davenant, The witts (1636), sig. B2; D. North, A forest of varieties (1645), 228-9. Negative perceptions were not confined to those of a sober, industrious yet hypocritical godly élite, but comprehended a more radical and dangerous underclass: a writer against heresy condemned it in 1641 as ‘a place always too much encumbered with Brownists and separatists’.5 The Brownist haerisies confuted, their knavery anatomized, and their fleshly spirits painted in full (1641), 1.

A charter of 1608 narrowed down to 18 the corporation, and hence the electorate, from the 24 established under Mary Tudor.6 R.K. Gilkes, ‘Banbury – the pattern of local government 1554-1835’, pt. 1, Cake and Cockhorse v. 3, 6. It is evident that the mayor, aldermen and chief burgesses, like the stratum below from which they were recruited, for the most part habitually subscribed to the town’s legendary ethos. The long ministry of William Whateley (d. 1639), curate and lecturer from 1605 and vicar from 1610, was marked by ‘persuasive’ preaching. Assisted by his brothers-in-law Robert Harris and Henry Scudder, respectively rector of Hanwell and minister at Drayton, he was more or less free – in this ecclesiastical peculiar exempt from episcopal jurisdiction – to advance a rigorous but moderate Calvinism and to dispense renowned practical charity.7 ‘William Whately’, Oxford DNB; W. Whately, The Oil of Gladness, or Comfort for Dejected Sinners (1637), The Poor Mans Advocate (1637), Prototypes, or, The primarie precedent presidents out of the booke of Genesis (1640); J. Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition of the Four Evangelists (1645), 107 (E.376.1) The attempts from June 1639 of Whateley’s successor John Howes to steer the town towards a form of devotion less divergent from that promoted by Archbishop William Laud led local inhabitants to petition Parliament in November 1640 ‘touching the wicked vicar at Banbury that put down preaching and vexed those that were godly and sought it elsewhere’.8 D’Ewes (N), 77; CJ ii. 38b; LJ iv. 108a. The presence of Epiphany Hill (baptized 1559) and Aholiab West (baptized 1603) among the councillors of 1639-40 gives one glimpse of the entrenched tradition confronting Howes.9 Banbury Corporation Recs. 171, 311, 326. The exclusivity of and endogamy among the corporation doubtless helped stiffen resolve.10 Banbury Corporation Recs. 270-9 (peds.).

In William Fiennes, 1st Viscount Saye and Sele, grantee of Banbury castle from 15 September 1629 and high steward of the borough from 25 June 1632, the godly élite had a patron whose well-known views on religion mirrored their own.11 Broughton Castle MSS; A. Beesley, The Hist. of Banbury (1841), 281; ‘William Fiennes’, Oxford DNB. Later both hostile and friendly commentators saw them as ‘perfect brethren’, Mercurius Britanicus claiming that ‘so excellently did that Lord shine in his conversation … that he sparkled many glimpses into the consciences of all that were near him’.12 Mercurius Britanicus no. 59 (18-25 Nov. 1644), 465 (E.18.12). Saye’s outlook was shared by successive recorders John Crewe I* (the MP in 1628) and (from 1634) Edward Bagshawe*: in late February/early March 1640 the latter fought Laud’s attempts to silence his readings at the Middle Temple, which questioned the temporal power of bishops.13 CSP Dom. 1639-40, pp. 522-4. There had been a similar unity on political questions. Saye was thought responsible for local resistance to the Forced Loan and billeting in the 1620s, and his negative example over Ship Money in the later 1630s was closely followed.14 VCH Oxon. x. 8; CSP Dom. 1636-7, p. 210. Lightly rated as it was, Banbury was consistently behind with its returns.15 CSP Dom. 1639, p. 229; 1640, p. 371; 1640-1, p. 110, 123.

The electors of March 1640, probably thinned down to 16 following the deaths shortly beforehand of two aldermen, included at least six who had had a voice in 1620s elections, at least two veterans of 1604 and all but one of the mayors who had been burdened with collection of extra-parliamentary taxation from 1635.16 Banbury Corporation Recs. 171, 299-328. The tradition of returning a gentleman of puritan persuasion endorsed by local grandees, compounded with the grievances of the moment, makes the election of Saye’s second son, Nathaniel Fiennes I*, almost a foregone conclusion.17 VCH Oxon. x. 89; HP Commons 1559-1603; HP Commons 1604-1629. His eldest son, James Fiennes*, who had represented the borough in 1625, was a candidate elsewhere, as were Crewe and Bradshawe. While Nathaniel, who had spent the earlier 1630s pursuing extended education abroad, had yet to prove himself, he came with unimpeachable credentials. His promotion in the Short Parliament of a bill to reform abuses in ecclesiastical courts should have gratified his constituents.

By the next election on 26 October 1640 Fiennes had thus begun to acquire a more conspicuous public profile. With only 13 of the corporation attending the swearing-in of mayor Andrew Annesley, tanner, on 29 September, the number of voices in Fiennes’ support may have been even smaller than in the spring; Thomas Webb, mercer and mayor in 1636-7, was almost certainly on his death-bed.18 Banbury Corporation Recs. 172, 299, 326. Annesley was a relative novice, which may explain why it was probably Richard Vivers, a woollen-draper in his mid-sixties, who in November delivered to the Commons the petition against Vicar Howes.19 CJ ii. 38b; Banbury Corporation Recs. 324. Members of the Vivers family, whose wealth was enhanced by agricultural interests outside the town, were to be noticeable in the military conflict and the manifestations of religious radicalism that followed.20 VCH Oxon. x. 8, 109; N. Fiennes, A most true and exact relation (1642), 3 (E.126.38); M. Vivers, The Saints testimony finishing through sufferings (1655) (E.857.7). Meanwhile, in the early days of the Long Parliament Fiennes would have amply met expectations in his high-profile onslaught on episcopacy, even if his intense engagement with national affairs and with negotiations with the Scots meant that he can have had little direct personal contact with his constituency.

Banbury’s strategic position cost it dear in the civil wars. Critical initial confrontations resulted first in the ordnance housed at the castle being surrendered to the royalist commander Spencer Compton†, 2nd earl of Northampton, and then the castle itself falling with suspicious ease to the king’s forces three days after the battle at nearby Edgehill.21VCH Oxon. x. 9; CJ ii. 836a, 909a; The proceedings at Banbury since the ordnance went down for the Lord Brooks to fortifie Warwick Castle [1642] (E.111.11); The Earle of Portlands charge (1642, E.110.8); [N. Fiennes], Exceeding joyfull nevves from Warwick-Castle and Banburie (1642); S. R. Good news from Banbury in Oxfordshire (1642, E.118.12); W. Seymour, New plots discovered against the Parliament (1642), [sig. A4] (E.126.12). In succeeding months the town suffered the usual effects of the presence of a tenacious ‘enemy’ garrison – financial exaction, destruction of property, fire, disease, and imprisonments of citizens.22 Beesley, Hist. of Banbury, 333-53; VCH Oxon. x. 24, 74-5; W. Prynne, The Popish Royall Favourite (1643), ¶3v; H. Palmer, Scripture and reason pleaded for defensive armes (1643), 77 (E.247.22); A perfect relation of the cause and manner of the apprehending … William Needle and Mistris Phillips ([1643], E.247.13) Normal activities of the corporation were disrupted after the election as mayor of Nathaniel Wheatley on 29 September 1643, while Aholiab West, chosen the next year, could scarcely function and the majority of the corporation were allegedly ‘constrained to fly out of the … borough to save their lives’.23 Banbury Corporation Recs. 176-7. Meanwhile, in December 1643 their MP underwent a court martial which briefly looked likely to be fatal, and was then suspended from the Commons, being reinstated only in September 1645.24 s.v. ‘Nathaniel Fiennes I’.

Recapturing the town was an important parliamentarian goal, but was not easily achievable. Besieged by parliamentary troops including John Fiennes* in 1644, Banbury was not finally retaken until May 1646, following an initiative launched by the Committee of Both Kingdoms. Its escape from royalist control, only a few weeks before its rival Oxford, prompted a day of public thanksgiving, and a reward for the messenger who brought the news.25 Beesley, Hist. of Banbury, 366-88, 413-22; VCH Oxon. x. 9-10; CJ iii. 521b-522a, 644b, 690b; N. Whetham, A Letter: being a full relation of the siege of Banbury Castle (1644, E.8.9); Luke Letter Bks. 336; Articles agreed upon the 6. of May 1646 (1646, 669.f.10.55); CJ iv. 540b, 541a. By this time, claimed the native-born minister and apologist Joshua Sprigge, there had been extensive devastation: ‘scarce the one half standing to gaze on the ruins of the other’.26 J. Sprigge, Anglia Rediviva (1647), 251. He may have exaggerated, but a decade later as different a commentator as Anthony Wood noted the destructive effects of the war.27 Beesley, Hist. of Banbury, 425. With the Fiennes family riding high at Westminster the corporation did not lack potential advocates for its case for reconstruction, although wider preoccupations may have engaged the attention of the viscount and his sons elsewhere, and their interests did not always march in tandem with those of the town. In June 1646, while the Lords issued an ordinance permitting the extraordinary extension of Aholiab West’s mayoralty, apparently to ease the return to normal local government, plans mooted for the slighting of the castle were confined to the earthworks, allowing Saye and Sele (contrary to the original intention) to keep the buildings (with the attendant possibility they might be used again to dominate the town).28 CJ iv. 541a, 580a; Banbury Corporation Recs. 177-8. A month later, in response to a ‘very reasonable’ request from Banbury inhabitants, the Lords awarded £300 from timber belonging to a sequestered malignant, ‘to be employed for the repair of the church and steeple, and rebuilding of the vicarage-house and common gaol there’.29 CJ iv. 618b. However, it took two years and required further petitioning to secure an order for total demolition of the castle and use of its fabric for repairs to the rest of the town, with acceptable compensation for Saye; the business was finally seen through the Commons by Richard Knightley*, Member for nearby Northampton.30 CJ v. 102b, 250b, 367b, 574b, 592a, 593a, 598b, 602b; VCH Oxon. x. 25, 41. Meanwhile, a petition to Parliament by the corporation and inhabitants for the augmentation of the salary of the minister of Banbury was agreed in November 1647, and a new vicar, Samuel Wells, was inducted by parliamentary order in September 1648.31 CJ v. 368b; Banbury Corporation Recs. 181; Beesley, Hist. of Banbury, 433-5. Like the Fiennes family, he was publicly opposed to the regicide.32 The humble advice … of certain well-affected ministers, lecturers of Banbury in the county of Oxon, and of Brackly in the county of Northampton (1649), 11 (E.540.12).

The exclusion of Nathaniel Fiennes from the Commons at Pride’s Purge left Banbury without direct parliamentary representation for the next decade. Discussion on reallocation of seats briefly accorded the town a seat once designated for New Woodstock (6 Dec. 1654), but both apparently lost out to an increase in county Members, or to confusion in the wake of the multiple returns of Charles Fleetwood*.33 CJ vii. 396b. However, with William Lenthall* as their recorder by 1651, and Nathaniel Fiennes back at Westminster in an Oxfordshire seat in 1654, Banbury retained channels for advancing its interests on such issues as the sale of fee farm rents.34 Banbury Corporation Recs. 185, 187-93. Having weathered Leveller unrest in 1649 and a rendezvous of troops assembled to fight the invading Scots in 1651, and continued a programme of rebuilding, the corporation then faced a further challenge.35 VCH Oxon. x. 10; CSP Dom. 1649-50, p. 94; The declaration of Lieutenant Generall Crumwel concerning the Levellers (1649, E.555.12); Beesley, Hist. of Banbury, 438-45; CJ vii. 6a. The rise of Quakerism which so exercised Lord Saye also divided the élite.36 W. Fiennes, Folly and Madness Made Manifest (1659); Beesley, Hist. of Banbury, 451-4. While cloth merchant Edward Vivers and his wife led a group of Friends in the town, veteran alderman William Allen used his office as justice of the peace to prosecute such radicalism, and found himself attacked in print.37 VCH Oxon. x. 109; A. Audland, A true declaration of the suffering of the innocent (1655, E.829.7); Banbury Corporation Recs. 299.

Of the 17 members of the corporation present at the swearing-in of the mayor on 29 September 1658, at least 16 were alive on 3 January 1659 when an election was held for the revived Banbury seat. Since eight of these held mayoral or magisterial office after 1662, and only three or four who lived past that date (including Allen, possibly an uncompromising Presbyterian) appear to have left the corporation, it looks as though there was a significant element holding at least moderate views in 1659.38 Banbury Corporation Recs. 203, 299-328. Nathaniel Fiennes being by this time speaker of the Other House, their choice devolved onto his son, Nathaniel Fiennes II*, an unobtrusive member of the family and of Parliament, who melted into the background at the Restoration. After a brief flourish of local radicalism when Edward Vivers was named a militia commissioner in July 1659, with the return of the old regime the corporation continued its tradition of endorsing local gentry by reverting to the Copes of Hanwell, who in Sir Anthony Cope† represented a royalist interest.39 CJ vii. 748a; Beesley, Hist. of Banbury, 471, 480-2.