Devizes

By the 1630s Devizes was struggling to maintain its pre-eminence among Wiltshire towns after the city of Salisbury. Although in a commanding position at the centre of the county, well-served by roads, it was on the edge of the cloth-making area, badly hit by depression. Unlike some other nearby towns, Devizes had not responded by diversification into the manufacture of medley broadcloth, while the serge and duffel production which was to consolidate its fortunes later in the century was only just being introduced.1 VCH Wilts. x. 225, 227-8, 255-6; E. Kerridge, Textile Manufactures in Early Modern England (1985), 33, 156-7; Ramsay, Wilts. Woollen Industry (1965), 81, 90, 110; E. Bradby, The Book of Devizes (1985), 11. Its long-established markets were still flourishing, its inns were commodious and leather trades continued, while the practice of hosting the April quarter sessions was well-entrenched.2 Bradby, Bk. of Devizes, 50-3; VCH Wilts. x. 256; Ramsay, Wilts. Woollen Industry, 7, 80. None the less, during a period of general financial hardship, the corporation was at particular pains to assert its rights and extend its privileges.

The election in October 1630 of Robert Nicholas* to replace as town clerk the redoubtable and recently deceased John Kent†, who had also served as county clerk of the peace and an MP, marked no loss of momentum.3 Wilts. RO, G20/1/17, ff. 71v, 73, 74v; Bradby, Bk. of Devizes, 59-60. Nicholas, a native of Roundway, immediately north east of the borough, and already like his father one of its burgesses, set about a careful perusal of its documents.4 Wilts. RO, G20/1/17, ff. 6v, 67v; Cunnington, Devizes, pt. ii. 86-7 As a result, he negotiated the buying up of fee farm rents and franchises and in 1639 obtained the latest in a series of new charters. As well as confirming him as recorder, this charter appears to have refined and clarified its predecessors, although it placed no limit on the number of burgesses.5 Cunnington, Devizes, pt. ii. 95; Add. 34008, ff. 31-38v; Wilts. N and Q iii. 540; Waylen, Devizes (1839), 159-60; VCH Wilts. x. 271, 284.

In the meantime, economic distress brought occasional violence in the area, but opposition to government policy was otherwise muted; there were signs of resentment and signs of compliance.6 CSP Dom. 1631-3, p.198. Urgent measures were taken for the relief of poverty and unemployment, while in 1636-7 there was a visitation of plague.7 CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 334, 375; Cunnington, Devizes, pt. ii. 95. Assessed at somewhat less than Marlborough (a rival quarter sessions town to the east), Devizes apparently paid its Ship Money contributions, but the meeting of justices of the peace convened there by the sheriff in November 1635 to expedite the process revealed general procrastination.8 VCH Wilts. x. 256; Cunnington, Devizes, pt. ii. 93-4; CSP Dom. 1635, p. 477. The corporation engaged preachers and installed a chained copy of John Foxe’s Acts and Monuments to counter signs of popery, and Nicholas, like Kent before him, was among local officials of a distinctly puritan bent. Yet injunctions to rail off the communion table in pursuance of the Laudian authorities’ drive for greater reverence in worship were obeyed at St Mary’s church in 1637 and £20 was contributed towards the repair of St Paul’s cathedral in 1638.9 Bradby, Bk. of Devizes, 60; Cunnington, Devizes, pt. ii. 96.

Whatever the balance of opinion in the borough on royal religious and fiscal policy, at the parliamentary election in spring 1640 there was a reassertion of local gentry interests, to the temporary exclusion of the more specifically urban figures characteristic of the later 1620s.10 HP Commons 1604-1629. The corporation, which continued to fluctuate, totalled 114 on 5 June 1639, made up of 21 capital burgesses and two other ranks.11 Wilts RO, G20/1/17, ff. 133v-4. An unknown number endorsed the return made by bailiff John Duke and mayor Thomas Kent on 13 March declaring the choice of Edward Bayntun* and Henry Danvers*.12 C219/42, pt. ii, no. 61. Bayntun’s selection doubtless rested on the rekindled influence of his father Sir Edward Bayntun* of Bromham, about three miles north west of the town; the latter, himself an erstwhile MP for Devizes, had been prominent in resistance to the controversial government commission issued to Anthony Wither to investigate and reorganise the Wiltshire cloth industry.13 CSP Dom. 1631-3, pp. 192, 312, 326; 1633-4, pp. 136-7; 1636-7, p. 429; Ramsay, Wilts. Woollen Industry, 98. The significance of the election of Danvers, a burgess of three months’ standing and former brother-in-law of George Herbert†, is harder to pinpoint. Previously, like others in his family, engaged in litigation with the Bayntuns, this gentleman was seated at Coulston, some seven miles south west of Devizes, and may have owed his return to his cousin and near neighbour Sir John Danvers*, and/or to Philip Herbert*, 4th earl of Pembroke, who had been the borough’s steward since 1630.14 Wilts RO, G20/1/17, f 138; CSP Dom. 1629-31, p. 417. Once at Westminster, however, neither Bayntun nor Danvers made any recorded contribution to the Short Parliament.

An indication that over the summer of 1640 there was at least some pro-government sentiment among the greater sort in Devizes is provided in the testimony of Thomas Webb, a local clothier, against others accused of speaking against Archbishop William Laud and the king.15 CSP Dom. 1640, pp. 272, 528. However, on 23 October the burgesses chose Recorder Nicholas, who had already defended a Wiltshire iconclast in the court of star chamber, to sit alongside the younger Bayntun.16 C219/43/3, no. 42. Both proved highly active in the Commons and both supported Parliament in 1642, although Bayntun was compromised temporarily by his father’s defection in 1643, and neither appears to have devoted much time to his constituents even before the outbreak of war.

In September 1642 the House was petitioned by a servant to the Wiltshire peer and former lord treasurer Francis Cottington, 1st Baron Cottington, who had been imprisoned by the mayor of Devizes ‘upon jealousy of being an intelligencer’ between his master and the north-western royalist James Stanley, Lord Strange.17 CJ ii. 778b. However, the next mayor published Charles I’s proclamation concerning traitors, only to be imprisoned by one of them, Sir Edward Bayntun, when, in the context of the allegiance prevalent among the north Wiltshire gentry, Devizes initially became the headquarters for Parliament’s militia. But no attempt was made to fortify the partially-ruined castle, and the incompetence of and feuding between successive local commanders-in-chief Bayntun and Sir Edward Hungerford* led to the town’s abandonment. 18 Cunnington, Devizes, pt. ii. 104-8; VCH Wilts. x. 229; LJ v. 619b; Add. 18980, f. 6; Harl. 164, f. 276a; CJ ii. 928a; Bradby, Bk. of Devizes, 61; Speciall passages and certain informations from severall places no. 23 (10-17 Jan. 1643), 191-2 (E.85.9); The kingdomes weekly intelligencer no. 3 (10-17 Jan. 1643, E.85.15); Mercurius Aulicus no. 2 (11 Jan 1643), 17 (E.86.22).

Between late March 1643 and September 1645 Devizes was continuously under royalist control; its MPs stood indicted of high treason at Salisbury.19 CJ iv. 323a; Bradby, Bk. of Devizes, 63. In the second week of July 1643 a wounded Sir Ralph Hopton* organised the barricading of the streets to repulse a bombardment and onslaught by Sir William Waller* and the subsequent rout of parliamentarian forces on the 13th a few miles north at Roundway Down marked a decisive moment. Battle casualties were multiplied by the steepness of the hillside and the impact on the neighbourhood, including the property of MP Nicholas, was probably considerable.20 Waylen, Devizes, 130-40; Bradby, Bk. of Devizes, 61–2; VCH Wilts. x. 229. Chamberlains’ accounts give some insights into the cost to the town of occupation, and later accusations before the Committee for Advance of Money alleged that ‘several of the well-affected’ were imprisoned at the Black Swan, but municipal records are thinner than previously.21 Wilts RO, G20/1/17; Cunnington, Devizes, pt. ii. 108-10. A raid by parliamentarians including Edmund Ludlowe II* and Alexander Popham* succeeded in capturing a senior member of the corporation in May 1644, and Sir James Long was defeated in the area by combined parliamentarian troops in March 1645, but royalist governor Colonel Charles Lloyd had been building up the town’s defences and the garrison survived.22 Waylen, Devizes, 142-5; Bradby, Bk. of Devizes, 62-3. Like other Wiltshire towns, Devizes experienced some destruction by clubmen that May, while a party of clothiers attempting to re-establish trade with London found themselves paying royalist forces twice over for the privilege.23 Waylen, Devizes, ‘159’, ‘150’, 158-9. When on 23 September Lloyd fairly readily surrendered Devizes to a brigade under Oliver Cromwell* it was received with relief and approbation in Parliament and elsewhere.24 CSP Dom. 1645-7, pp. 150, 155, 157, 180; Waylen, Devizes, ‘146’; CJ iv. 284b. Days of thanksgiving was ordered on the 26th and 27th for this and other recent victories.25 CJ iv. 288a, 290b.

In May 1646, following a report from the Committee of the West by Sir John Evelyn of Wiltshire*, the Commons ordered the slighting of the castle and the employment of materials then stored within it for the repair of St John’s church and parsonage; demolition was undertaken mainly in 1648.26 CJ iv. 463a, 534a, 556b; Waylen, Devizes, ‘147’; Cunnington, Devizes pt. ii. 116, 118. A garrison was installed, initially under Ludlowe; measures were taken against prominent royalists, notably Richard Pierce; the April quarter sessions from 1647 were held by men such as Nicholas and Recruiter MP William Eyre II*.27 Cunnington, Devizes pt. ii. 110-11, 114-5; CCAM 749, 764, 1074-5; Wilts RO, A1/160/1, f. 80. Not everything went smoothly, however. In September 1646 complaints reached one MP (probably Nicholas) of Presbyterian preacher John Shepherd being challenged in his pulpit at St John’s by soldiers under the command of Henry Ireton*, and the disbandment there of the brigade of Major-general Edward Massie* also caused trouble in late October, as Parliament was informed.28 T. Edwards, The Third Part of Gangraena (1646), 30 (E.368.5); Bradby, Bk. of Devizes, 63; CJ iv. 728a; VCH Wilts. x. 229. While religious uncertainty was partially resolved by the sequestration of rector Robert Bing and induction of Shepherd, wartime disruption had greatly diminished sales of wool and yarn and in 1647 competition from reformado soldiers seeking employment in the trade without having served apprenticeships provoked protests from local weavers.29 LJ x. 358a; Walker Revised, 370; Ramsay, Wilts. Woollen Industry, 112, 125; Cunnington, Devizes pt. ii. 112, 117. Yet hardship cannot have been universal: the council may have complained in 1649 of excessive amounts paid out of corporation coffers, but its house was improved and extended.30 Cunnington, Devizes pt. ii. 116; VCH Wilts. x. 277.

Bayntun was excluded at Pride’s Purge. Nicholas survived, but escaped involvement in the king’s trial and was thereafter only occasionally visible in the Commons, As a result a dispute among the heirs of Sir Peter Vanlore over the descent of what remained of Devizes castle and the surrounding park, into which local inhabitants were drawn, languished before the House without resolution.31 CSP Dom. 1654, p. 130; CJ vii. 387a, 505b; viii. 344. Following Nicholas’s appointment as a judge of upper bench, on 13 June 1649 he resigned as recorder, justice of the peace and burgess of Devizes, although he remained a local benefactor and in August 1650 was commended by the Commons for his care in investigating and addressing disorder in and around the town while on circuit. 32 Wilts. RO, 765/8; Wilts. N and Q iii. 542; CJ vi. 456.

There are indications that by this time Marlborough was vying to overtake Devizes in importance. In 1653 the former was ranked above the latter in orders of the council of state and correspondence of the county committee.33 CSP Dom. 1652-3, p. 280; CCC 650-5. That December the articles for the future government of the commonwealth included Devizes among towns which would have only one seat at Westminster.34 A. and O. This was reflected in the writ for the first protectorate Parliament. Over 50 ‘burgesses and inhabitants’ appeared to sign or make their mark on an indenture of 7 July.35 C219/44/pt. 3; cf. Cunnington, Devizes pt. ii. 119-22. Concern at potential loss of political as well as economic standing may have played a part in the otherwise surprising election of the excluded Bayntun, although the interest of his more radical father doubtless still counted and the son himself was capable of being a robust advocate. However, although he sat on several committees addressing on economic, legal and religious reform, there is no evidence of engagement with business specific to Devizes. In time he may have forfeited local confidence: in 1656 his father was deprived of his office as justice of the ward of the borough for repeated failure to attend sessions of the peace.36 Cunnington, Devizes pt. ii. 124.

A rallying point for the militia and army, the town appears to have escaped the worst of the disturbances associated with the Penruddock rebellion, although there are signs of some difficulty filling borough offices.37 TSP iii. 242; iv. 520; Cunnington, Devizes pt ii. 122-4. It was subsequently a headquarters for forces under Major-general John Disbrowe* and it continued to host quarter sessions; in 1656 the triers and ejectors sat there and some time in 1655-6 the corporation paid £3 7s 6d ‘about procuring of the county court to be kept here’.38 Wilts. RO, A1/160/2; A narrative of the proceedings of the commissioners appointed by O. Cromwell (1660), 56; Cunnington, Devizes pt ii. 124. Both the relationship between the borough and military authorities and the former’s political aspirations are apparent in the election to the second protectorate Parliament of Captain Edward Scotten*, a career soldier from the garrison with no known previous connection to the area but a record of service under Cromwell. A later petition from its rival, Salisbury, claimed that he was chosen ‘of purpose to be instrumental for the continuance of the [county] court at Devizes’.39 J. Waylen, 'The Wilts. county court: Devizes versus Wilton', Wilts. Arch. Mag. xxvii. 114-5. Moderately active in the first session, Scotten was duly the first nominated to prepare a bill for the holding of the sheriff’s court (25 Dec.), but progress seems to have been hampered by other business subsequently delegated to the committee.40 Burton’s Diary, i. 168, 267; CJ vii. 475a, 476b.

The courts evidently continued at Devizes, but unofficially. They may have featured in a petition of 11 May 1658 from the mayor and burgesses to the council of state for yet another new charter.41 CSP Dom. 1658-9, p. 19. Referred to learned counsel, this probably ran into the ground, but in compensation writs for election at the end of the year once more specified two seats in Parliament. Scotten, who had just presented the corporation with ‘the escutcheon of the late lord protector ... to hang up in the Guildhall’, was again returned, doubtless with government endorsement.42 Cunnington, Devizes pt ii. 126. His senior partner was novice Chaloner Chute II*, son of an eminent father; three years earlier the pair had purchased the lease to Devizes castle and park.43 Waylen, Devizes, 302. Neither Member proved active in the Commons.

Divisions in the corporation were reflected in a double return to the Convention, resolved in favour of the mayor’s choice even though John Norden* appeared to have ten more voices from the burgesses in a context of some 15 fewer voters.44 CJ viii. 3b, 107a; HP Commons 1660-1690. The town clerk who had replaced Nicholas did not long survive the Restoration, and the borough’s chief concerns of the middle decades of the century remained to be addressed.45 CSP Dom. 1660-1, pp. 193, 547; Cunnington, Devizes pt ii. 127.