FIENNES, Lawrence (bef. 1683-1742)

Little is known of Lawrence Fiennes prior to his accession to the peerage in 1710, which came about as a result of the failure of the senior branch of the family represented by Nathaniel Fiennes, 4th Viscount Saye and Sele. It has not been possible to determine a precise date for Fiennes’ birth (or that of his father, who probably died in about 1692). HP Commons, 1640–60, unpublished article on John Fiennes by David Scott. Evidence produced in a case brought in the court of exchequer reveals that he was probably an adult or very nearly an adult by 1684, and his older brother, Thomas Fiennes, referred to his riotous way of life in a will drawn up in August 1683. Thomas Fiennes hoped that Lawrence ‘shall see the error of his ways and forsake his present idle, wicked life’. TNA, E 134/3and4Anne/Hil4 ; PROB 11/488. At least three older siblings predeceased Fiennes, opening the way to his succession to the peerage, though not to the majority of the family’s estates as the principal interest in the manor of Broughton appears to have descended with the barony of Saye and Sele, at that time in abeyance between the coheirs of James Fiennes, 2nd Viscount Saye and Sele. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 531; VCH Oxon. ix. 89. Lawrence Fiennes’s succession to the estates of another brother, William Fiennes (who died in 1699), at Moreton Morrell in Warwickshire, was also complicated by legal challenges in the courts of chancery and exchequer. VCH Warws. v. 120; TNA, E 134/1Anne/Mich23, E 134/3and4Anne/Hil4, E 134/4Anne/Trin8, C33/301, ff. 355, 524, 534.

It was no doubt as a result of his obscure heritage that Fiennes’s succession to the peerage did not go unquestioned. Narcissus Luttrell described his title as ‘somewhat dubious’ and in February 1710 Saye and Sele was forced to petition the queen for a writ of summons. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 545; HMC Lords, n.s. viii. 361. His petition was referred to the committee for privileges, which convened on 14 February. On 16 Feb. the committee heard evidence from his kinsmen lieutenant-general Thomas Erle^‡ and Sir John St Barbe in support of his claim. PA, HL/PO/DC/CP/1/3, ff. 170–2. The following day the House ordered that his writ of summons be issued. Add. 61500, f. 105; Add. 61652, f. 204; Herts. ALS, DE/P/F113, Sunderland to Cowper, 18 Feb. 1710. On 24 Feb. Saye and Sele took his seat in the House, after which he attended regularly until the close of the session (approximately 23 per cent of all sitting days). On 16 Mar. he protested at the resolution to put the question whether the Commons had made good the first article of impeachment against Henry Sacheverell and on 20 Mar. he found Sacheverell not guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours, subscribing a further protest that day against the guilty verdict.

Saye and Sele attended four of the prorogation days between April and July 1710. On 3 Oct. Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, assessed him as a likely supporter of his new ministry. He resumed his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 27 Nov. 1710, after which he was present for three-quarters of all sitting days in the first session. On 5 Feb. 1711 he registered his dissent at the resolution to reject the general naturalization bill and in June he was included in a list of Tory patriots. Resuming his seat at the opening of the second session on 7 Dec., after which he again attended approximately three-quarters of all sitting days, on 19 Dec. he was correctly forecast as being in favour of allowing James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to take his seat in the House as duke of Brandon and voted accordingly the following day.

Deprived of the inheritance of both Broughton and his father’s estate at Great Amwell in Hertfordshire (which had passed to his brother-in-law, Thomas Filmer), Saye and Sele’s name was included in a list of ‘poor lords’ to be sent to the future George I on 15 Jan. 1712. VCH Herts. iii. 417. It was thought that a pension of £400 would secure his allegiance to the House of Hanover. On 14 Apr. he petitioned the House for a writ of error in a case he was contesting with Henry Lloyd in the court of queen’s bench but on 24 May the House ruled in Lloyd’s favour. Regularly in attendance on the prorogation days between July 1712 and March 1713, on 29 Feb. 1713 his name was included in a list of lords compiled by Oxford (as Harley had since become) to be canvassed before the new session. A list in Jonathan Swift’s hand of 15 Mar. assessed Saye and Sele as a probable supporter of the ministry. He resumed his seat at the opening of the third session on 9 Apr., after which he attended on almost 78 per cent of all sitting days and on 13 June he was estimated by Oxford to be a likely supporter of the bill for confirming the eighth and ninth articles of the French commerce treaty.

Saye and Sele returned to the House at the opening of the new Parliament on 16 Feb. 1714, after which he was present on almost 89 per cent of all sitting days in the first session. On 27 May, Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, forecast that Saye and Sele would be a supporter of the schism bill. He resumed his seat on 3 Aug. and attended eight days of the brief 15-day session that met in the wake of the queen’s death.

Saye and Sele continued to attend the House frequently under the new regime. In February 1718 he accepted the government pension that secured his support for Sunderland’s ministry, though it was noted that he ‘would not vote against the earl of Oxford in any critical matter’. Add. 61602, f. 70. In his own letter to Sunderland at the beginning of March 1718, Saye and Sele emphasized that he would support Sunderland ‘in all things that consist with my honour’. Ibid. f. 139. He retained his high level of attendance until May 1737, when he sat for the final time. Four years earlier, he had excused his inability to attend a service on the grounds of being ‘too weak’, so poor health may explain his absence from the House for the final four years of his life. TNA, SP 36/29, Saye and Sele to Newcastle, 23 May 1733. Details of the latter stages of his career will be dealt with in the next phase of this work.

Saye and Sele died unmarried on 27 Dec. 1742. In his will he named his kinsmen Edward Trotman and Robert Eddowes as executors. The peerage and the greater part of Saye and Sele’s possessions, including his coronet and both coronation and Parliament robes, passed to his cousin Richard Fiennes* [1142], at the time a fellow of New College, Oxford, who succeeded as 6th Viscount Saye and Sele.