FIENNES, William (c. 1641-98)

Saye and Sele is something of an enigma. Described by his relations as ‘weak’ and ‘mentally incapable’, his disability also appears to have been widely known outside his family as two years before he succeeded to the peerage one correspondent remarked that, ‘I am sorry to tell you who will be Lord Saye for it is the brother to him that is dead and he is a fool’. Verney ms mic. M636/25, A. Nicholas to Sir R. Verney, 8 Aug. 1672. The precise nature of his malady remains uncertain. He appears to have enjoyed periods of lucidity, and it seems only to have been in later life that he descended into permanent mental torpor. In spite of his condition he was able to marry twice, attend the House on occasion and to oversee an extensive programme of improvements on the family estates. Much of this may have been owing to the efforts of the trustees who managed his affairs after his succession to the peerage. It is noticeable that unlike his uncle and grandfather, Saye and Sele was appointed neither lieutenant nor a deputy in Oxfordshire, which may again be indicative of a general perception that he was weak-minded. Nevertheless, it is at times difficult to reconcile his supposed mental incapacity with his other activities.

There can be no doubt that the Fiennes family believed sincerely that Saye and Sele suffered from a debilitating mental illness. It was stated explicitly that this was the reason for his father providing him with a modest inheritance sufficient only for his maintenance, and on his succeeding to the viscountcy there was a dispute within the family over who should manage his affairs. His aunt, Frances Ellis, believed to be influential at court, sought to take control. She was thwarted by Saye and Sele’s uncles who petitioned the lord keeper (Heneage Finch, later earl of Nottingham), determined to protect him and the estate from this ‘expensive woman,’ who they believed would ‘ruin the estate and family.’ Bodl. Rawl. D 892 ff. 209, 321, 325. It is perhaps significant that on her death, Frances Ellis was buried in her maternal family’s church of St Mary’s, Wimbledon, not at Broughton. Life and Times of Sir Edward Cecil, Viscount Wimbledon, 1572-1638 ed. C. Dalton, ii. 358n. Although safe from the interference of his aunt, shortly after his succession the trustees were perplexed to discover that Saye and Sele wished to marry, so ‘kept strict watch over him till they could find out some discrete person to recommend … to him.’ A suitable candidate was found in the person of his cousin, Mary Fiennes. She took a close interest in estate affairs, but the alliance was brought to a premature conclusion when she died in childbirth after just two years of marriage. Bodl. Rawl. D 892 ff. 321, 341.

The Fiennes estates, which had fallen into some decay under the 2nd viscount, underwent a huge programme of improvement following Saye and Sele’s succession. He confirmed his uncle’s steward, Abel Makepeace, in office shortly after inheriting, and (with his first wife) he also took a personal interest in the estate revenue. In ten years, the yields from estate rentals doubled. On his succeeding to the title the half-yearly rents from Saye and Sele’s lands amounted to between £380 and £450. By 1685 the rental income had risen to over £1,000. In part, the improvement was owing to the reacquisition of property in Banbury left by the 2nd viscount to his daughter, Frances Ellis, and other beneficiaries. The scale of improvement nevertheless suggests that the estate was being run more efficiently. Traditional family rights were also asserted. When it was discovered that the family did not have a pew in the church at Weston-under-Edge, the vicar general of Gloucester was commissioned to make one available. Ibid. ff. 1-2, 214, 319; D 915, passim.

In spite of his apparent disabilities, Saye and Sele took his seat in the House at the opening of the new session on 13 Apr. 1675, after which he was present on two-thirds of all sitting days. His arrival in London proved of sufficient moment to be noted in a newsletter six days prior to him taking his seat. Verney ms mic. M636/28, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 7 Apr. 1675. The following day he was named to the sessional committees for privileges and petitions, and he was nominated to a further half a dozen committees in the course of the session. On 21 Apr. he subscribed the protest at the failure to reject the bill for preventing dangers from disaffected persons, and eight days later he protested again at the House’s censure of the 26 Apr. protest against committing the measure. Absent from the House after 20 May, the following day he registered his proxy with Thomas Belasyse, 2nd Viscount (later Earl) Fauconberg, which was vacated by the close.

Saye and Sele resumed his seat at the opening of the following session on 13 Oct. 1675. Once again, he was nominated to the sessional committees for privileges and petitions as well as to the sub-committee for the Journal, and on 14 Oct. he was also named to the committee for the bill to explain that concerning popish recusants. Despite this apparently committed activity, Saye and Sele attended on just five days before quitting the House for the remainder of the session, registering his proxy on 26 Oct. with his kinsman, George Booth, Baron Delamer.

Saye and Sele failed to attend the following two (1677-8 and May-July 1678) sessions. He was nevertheless assessed by Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, as worthy in May 1677. He also ensured that his absence from the latter session was covered by registering his proxy on 25 May 1678 with Denzil Holles, Baron Holles.

Saye and Sele resumed his seat a month into the second 1678 session on 23 Nov., but he was again marked present on just five occasions before retiring for the remainder of the session. Named to the committee for the militia bill on 26 Nov., three days later, although not included on the attendance list that day, he was noted among those who had voted in favour of the address to the king for removing Queen Catharine and her servants from Whitehall. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 387. On 6 Dec. he registered his proxy with Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, which was again vacated by the close.

In advance of the new Parliament, Saye and Sele was assessed by Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later duke of Leeds), as a likely opponent in two forecasts of 1 and 3 Mar. 1679. That of 2 Mar. also cast him as an opponent but unreliable. He took his seat a week into the new Parliament's second session on 22 Mar. after which he was present on 26 per cent of all sitting days. Although associated with the opposition grouping at this time, he was again missing from the House from the end of March until 9 May, covering his absence by registering his proxy with Wharton once more. Jones, Party and Management, ed. C. Jones, 18. On 10 May he voted in favour of appointing a joint committee to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached lords, subscribing the protest when the motion was rejected. On 23 May he entered two further protests, first at the resolution to instruct the Lords committee meeting with the Commons not to comment on the question of the bishops voting and second at the resolution to proceed with the trials of the Catholic peers before that of Danby. Four days later he protested again at the decision to insist on the previous resolution concerning the bishops.

Saye and Sele’s name was included on the list of those who addressed the king to summon a new Parliament on 6 Dec. 1679, but he failed to attend the Parliament that convened in October 1680, being noted as missing without explanation at a call of the House on 30 October. He was later listed among those peers who had been absent from the divisions on the Exclusion Bill on 15 November. In advance of the Oxford Parliament, held at Oxford in the spring of 1681, Saye and Sele was again noted by Danby as a likely opponent, but he failed to attend even though the assembly was so close to his home. Although he resumed his place shortly after the opening of the subsequent Parliament on 22 May 1685, he attended on just four days before retiring again. In his absence, his proxy was secured by peers loyal to the court. On 26 May it was registered with Francis North, Baron Guilford, vacated by Guilford’s death in September. It was then transferred to Robert Spencer, 2nd earl of Sunderland, on 9 Nov. to cover the final days of the session.

The latter part of 1685 found Saye and Sele’s family facing a challenge from a new quarter when he was effectively kidnapped from Broughton by agents of the Banbury-based Walker family. Bodl. Rawl. D 892, ff. 321, 323-4; Add. 61358, ff. 1-2. Edward Walker was said to have been ‘low in the world’ and eager to pair his daughter off without a portion. Add. 61358, ff. 21-22. Aided by Philip Styles, who was later appointed Saye and Sele’s deputy steward, the Walkers spirited Saye and Sele to Northampton with one of the viscount’s servants following in hot pursuit. There, they succeeded in intimidating the mayor into acquiescing in their scheme. Having threatened the loyal retainer, French, with imprisonment, the following day (7 Sept.) the Walkers arranged Saye and Sele’s marriage to Katherine Walker, having apparently secured a licence at Peterborough two days previously. Significantly, the Fiennes family appears to have made no attempt to challenge the validity of the marriage at this point, though following his death, Saye and Sele’s son from his first marriage (Nathaniel Fiennes, later 4th Viscount Saye and Sele) declared that his father had been incapable of making such a ‘solmen’ [sic], act and described the marriage as ‘artificial.’ Faced with the marriage as a fait accompli, Saye and Sele’s relations were forced to consent to a settlement in which the new viscountess was promised an annuity of £300 and payment of her debts as part of the marriage settlement. The future 4th viscount was provided with an annuity of £250 once he attained the age of 21 and was advised to live abroad after finishing at Oxford. He was in Italy when his father died 13 years later. Ibid.; Bodl. Rawl. D 892, f. 324.

In spite of registering his proxy with Sunderland in the previous session, Saye and Sele was noted as a likely opponent of repeal of the Test in January 1687, and in May he was included in a further list of those peers thought likely to oppose the king’s policies. Subsequent assessments of November 1687 and January 1688 also reckoned Saye and Sele as an opponent of repeal. Even so, there is no evidence that he was an active opponent of the king, and he appears to have played little part in the Revolution. He attended just one session of the provisional government on 12 Dec 1688 and one day of the Convention the following year. Kingdom without a King, 79; LJ, xiv. 151. Noted as being sick at a call on 25 Jan. 1689, he rallied to take his seat on 18 Mar. but registered his proxy with George Compton, 4th earl of Northampton, later the same day. The proxy was exercised by Northampton to vote in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill reversing the judgments of perjury against Titus Oates. Saye and Sele was again missing, this time without excuse, at a call of 28 Oct. after which, on 9 Nov, he registered the proxy with Northampton once more. It was again vacated by the close. He continued to be noted as missing without excuse at a series of calls over the ensuing four years, but following a call of 21 Nov. 1692, the House wrote requiring his attendance. In response, on 27 Nov. Thomas Welford, postmaster of Banbury, replied that Saye and Sele was in Worcestershire and that although the letter had been sent on to him there, no reply had been received. HMC Lords, iv. 121-2. No further action appears to have been taken. Saye and Sele attended on just one further occasion on 16 Dec. 1693, registering his proxy the same day with Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, to whom he had appealed the previous year to employ his interest on behalf of one Weely Cale. CSP Dom. 1691-2, p. 532. He registered the proxy with Nottingham again on 16 Feb. 1695. The following year, the House ordered Saye and Sele and several other peers to be sent for, for failing to attend, and on 2 Dec. Saye and Sele was ordered to be attached for his continual failure to present himself. He was eventually excused after his doctor certified that he was too ill to attend. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 144; HMC Lords, ii. 263, 267.

Saye and Sele died two years later on 9 Dec. 1698. Even in death he was not safe from indignity. His widow accused the family of refusing to allow his corpse to be conveyed into Broughton Castle prior to his interment. The charge was denied by his cousin, William Fiennes, who had moved rapidly to secure the place from the dowager’s agents, but Saye and Sele was instead taken directly to the church at Broughton where he was buried. Add. 61358, ff. 21-22. He was succeeded in the title by his only surviving son from his first marriage who was abroad at the time of his succession. Almost at once a dispute arose over Saye and Sele’s will. The new viscount claimed his stepmother and her relations had imposed the will on Saye and Sele when he was out of his mind. The case presupposed that the 3rd viscount’s mental incapacity was common knowledge, something the family had been reluctant to admit openly during his lifetime. Bodl. Rawl. D 892, f. 325. The dowager viscountess was accused of having, ‘disclosed transactions which a due regard for her husband’s memory ought to have induced her to keep secret.’ HMC Lords, iv. 214. He also suggested as the case dragged on that he was able to provide more information on his father’s illness than he had at first volunteered. Bodl. Rawl. D 892, f. 324. A letter from Lady Danby to her daughter-in-law, Lady Dunblane, warning of the perils of alcohol mentioned the 3rd Viscount Saye and Sele as being so ill that he was unable to leave his chamber. It is possible then that alcohol had played some part in his mental instability but the true nature of his condition remains uncertain. HMC Lindsey Supp. 60. The dowager viscountess later married Vincent Oakley, a gentleman from Banbury.