FIENNES, Richard (1555-1612)

Fiennes was descended from James Fiennes^† (d.1450), the younger son of Sir William Fiennes of Hurstmonceaux, Sussex. James rose through service in the household of Henry VI, accumulating large estates in Kent and Sussex, and was raised to the peerage in 1447 as Lord Saye and Sele, almost certainly by letters patent, although the grant no longer survives. The unusual two-part title probably arose because James wished to signify his connection with the older barony of Say. This title was in abeyance, but he could not claim it for himself, even though his mother was one of the coheirs, as the latter’s rights descended to James’s elder brother. The second part of James’s title derived from the manor of Seal/Sele, which he inherited from his father, but it was frequently omitted, which may have led to confusion with the older barony. James became lord treasurer in 1449, but was beheaded during Cade’s rebellion the following year.18 Oxford DNB online sub Fiennes, James first Baron Saye and Sele (Jan. 2008); CP, xi. 479-81; W.E. Ball, ‘Stained-Glass Windows of Nettlestead Church’, Arch. Cant. xxviii. 214.

James’s son, William^†, succeeded to the title and was summoned to Parliament, but lost the bulk of his father’s estate. However, he acquired Broughton Castle in Oxfordshire by marriage, which subsequently became the family home. The 2nd Lord Saye and Sele died at the battle of Barnet (1471), and was succeeded by a minor, who probably expired before coming of age as he was never summoned to Parliament. For a time subsequent heads of the family continued to use the title, but they too were not summoned to Parliament, probably due to a combination of frequent minorities and a depleted estate.19 CP, xi. 482-4, appendices p. 149; SP12/193/68; W. Dugdale, Baronage of Eng. ii. 247.

Fiennes’s father, Sir Richard Fiennes^‡, was de jure 6th Baron Saye and Sele, but he made no attempt to claim his title because of the opposition of Edward Clinton alias Fiennes^†, 1st earl of Lincoln, one of the heirs to the medieval Say barony, who sometimes used that title.20 SP12/193/68. Nevertheless, he began the process of reviving the family fortunes. Elected to the Commons for Oxfordshire in 1547, he leased Banbury Castle from the crown and started to rebuild Broughton Castle.21 HP Commons, 1509-58, ii. 132-3; N.P. Bard, ‘William Fiennes, First Viscount Saye and Sele’ (Virg. Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1974), 6. Fiennes was aged 17 when his father died and consequently became a ward of the crown. His wardship was sold to a Hampshire knight, Sir William Kingsmill, for £233. Fiennes subsequently married Kingsmill’s daughter and, after coming of age, continued the recovery of the family fortune. He increased his income by consolidating and enclosing his lands around Broughton, as well as by breeding sheep, and eventually left his heir an estate estimated to have been worth between £2,000 and £3,000 a year.22 Bard, 6-7, 13, 37.

Claiming the Saye and Sele barony, 1586-1603

The 1st earl of Lincoln died in 1585. The following year Fiennes, encouraged by the 2nd earl (Henry Clinton alias Fiennes^*), claimed the Saye and Sele barony.23 SP12/193/68; HMC Hatfield, iii. 185. Fiennes won considerable support at court, and in January 1589 William Cecil^†, 1st Lord Burghley, predicted that Fiennes would soon be summoned to Parliament, though he envisaged a new creation rather than a restoration.24 Bard, 21; HMC Bath, v. 97; SP12/222/21. However, Elizabeth refused to grant a barony to Fiennes, who continued to press his claims as the rightful holder of the 1447 title, but without success.25 HMC Hatfield, vii. 383; xi. 469; CSP Dom. 1595-7, p. 518.

Fiennes’s failure suggests that the queen, always reluctant to create new peerages, had doubts about his suitability for membership of the upper House. These doubts may well have been justified. On travelling to Italy in 1596, he reportedly conducted himself ‘with infinite dishonour to the queen and eternal infamy to himself’, exploiting letters of recommendation he had received from the crown and showing an unseemly amount of gratitude for the meagre hospitality he had received from the Italian princes.26 F. Davison, Poetical Rhapsody ed. N.H. Nicholas, i. pp. xxxii-xxxiii. In addition, his second marriage was troubled, and by October 1592 he had separated from his wife, who was suspected of Catholicism. How far his wife’s religion was the cause of their separation is unclear, as his first wife had also held Catholic sympathies and his mother’s family were church papists. Nevertheless, Fiennes, for all his avarice, regarded himself as one of the godly, a fact so well known that in 1604 it became necessary for him to disavow puritanism.27 CSP Dom. 1591-4, pp. 209-11, 277-8; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 168; xvii. 142; Bard, 18, n.42; A. Davidson, ‘Roman Catholicism in Oxon. from the Late Elizabethan Period to the Civil War (1580-1640)’ (Bristol Univ. Ph.D. thesis, 1970), 50, 618-19.

The accession of James I in 1603 presented Fiennes with a fresh opportunity to press his case. He petitioned the king, tracing his ancestry back to a nephew of King Stephen’s wife and argued that ‘by a small intermission of time’ the Saye and Sele barony had been discontinued ‘but is no way tainted or extinguished’. He also averred that Elizabeth had accepted his claim and that Burghley had ordered letters patent to be drawn up, although he did not explain why they had never been issued. He asked James to ‘consider my just title’ to the barony ‘with the same gracious eye and heroical respect wherewith your Majesty is pleased to grace the suppressed or decayed nobility’.28 Bodl., Rawl. D892, f. 186. Accordingly, on 13 June a committee of privy councillors was instructed to investigate.29 SO3/2, p. 35; Bodl., Rawl. D892, f. 331.

Although no one apparently objected to reviving the barony, objections were evidently raised at the prospect of allowing Fiennes the precedence of the 1447 creation, which would rank him above all barons created since then, including those to be made at the forthcoming coronation. In order to obtain recognition of his peerage, Fiennes was therefore forced to agree to relinquish this precedence. Consequently, when the patent was issued on 9 Aug. (nearly three weeks after the coronation) Fiennes was ranked as the junior baron. Moreover, this document also said that the Saye title would descend only to Fiennes’s heirs, rather than to the heirs of the 1447 creation. In other words, the 1603 patent had the effect of creating a new peerage rather than reviving the old one. However, perhaps because it was suspected that the 1447 peerage had been a barony by writ, inheritance was not restricted to the male heirs.30 HMC Hatfield, xv. 191, 196, 209; 47th DKR, 98; CP, xi. 493.

The patent ensured that Saye was summoned to the first Jacobean Parliament, which commenced in March 1604. He was frequently not marked as present in the early days of the session, apparently missing five of the first seven sittings. Thereafter, however, he appears to have failed to attend only twice: on 26 Apr., and on the morning of 3 July. Consequently, he attended 90 per cent of sittings (64 of 71). Named to 16 of the 70 committees established by the upper House in 1604, his appointments included four conferences with the Commons, including one on religion. His other committees concerned legislation, including measures against drunkards, beggars and Catholic priests.31 LJ, ii. 274a, 282b, 304b, 314a, 324b. He made no recorded contribution to the session’s poorly documented debates.

The early sessions of the first Jacobean Parliament, 1604-7

During the 1604 session Saye became increasingly discontented, as other peers, whom he considered less deserving than himself, were restored with their ancestors’ precedence. On 18 Apr. he wrote to the principal secretary of state, Robert Cecil^*, Lord Cecil (subsequently 1st earl of Salisbury), citing the example of William Parker^*, summoned at the start of the Parliament in right of his maternal grandfather’s barony of Monteagle and ranked above him in accordance with that barony’s original creation. What particularly agitated Saye was the restoration of William Paget^* as 5th Lord Paget, the bill for which had been returned from the Commons that day, as that barony had been forfeited for treason, a crime for which Saye’s ancestors had never been convicted. After informing Cecil that he had voted against Paget’s bill, he argued that the failure to restore his own barony to its original precedence was dishonourable, as it implied that his ancestors had been guilty of an even worse crime than treason. He therefore sought permission to put his case before the Lords. As inducements, he offered to pay £40 to one of Cecil’s servants and to give Cecil himself a horse.32 HMC Hatfield, xvi. 62-3.

Saye pressed his case again after the Lords resolved the Abergavenny dispute to allow ancient baronies to both claimants. On the latter occasion he promised Cecil £100 if he obtained for him the king’s favour, pledging a jewel worth £200 as security. This was despite the fact that, earlier that month, he had complained he could not afford to pay his subsidy assessment, which had been increased from £20 to 40 marks (£26 13s. 4d.).33 Ibid. 74-5, 110, 240. However, Saye’s precedence seems never to have been raised in the upper House, indicating that permission to do so was refused.

In October 1604 Saye bombarded Cecil, by now Viscount Cranborne, with money-making projects. However, his description of himself as the poorest English baron was certainly inaccurate. Although not possessed of a vast fortune, careful management had probably made Saye one of the prosperous landowners in Oxfordshire, and there were several other peers, such as Edward Stafford^*, 4th Lord Stafford, with smaller incomes. First he proposed that he should be allowed to sell licences authorizing inns and victualling houses to retail meat on prohibited days. Then he suggested both a tax on the theatre, a form of entertainment he regarded as unnecessary, and a project to raise money by enforcing a 1544 statute against the conversion of woodlands to pasture or arable farmland. He also sought an office in the prerogative court of York.34 Ibid. 329-30, 335, 339-40; EDWARD STAFFORD; Hatfield House, CP107/89; SR, iii. 977-80. None of his schemes bore fruit. Despite the supposed emptiness of his purse, he was appointed in January 1605 to accompany Edward Seymour^*, 1st earl of Hertford, on the embassy sent to the Spanish Netherlands to ratify the treaty of London. He made no attempt to avoid the service and, despite warning Cranborne that he could not afford to kit himself out suitably, he assured Hertford’s steward, James Kirton^‡, that he and his attendants would be dressed magnificently.35 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 6-7; HMC Bath, iv. 165.

In June, following his return to England, Saye secured a grant of the fines and other penalties imposed for recusancy on eight Catholics, including Thomas Brudenell^* (later 1st earl of Cardigan). This grant was undoubtedly intended as compensation for expenses incurred nine years earlier, when he had formed part of an embassy dispatched to the landgrave of Hesse, although in order to procure it he was first obliged to secure the services of the Scottish courtier, Robert Carr^* (subsequently earl of Somerset), to whom he paid £20 with a promise of a further £60. However, Saye never benefited from this grant because, for reasons never given, he declined to compound with the Catholics concerned. Instead he brought prosecutions against them, which induced them either to flee or to conform to the established Church. In desperation, on 20 July, he suggested to Cranborne, by now earl of Salisbury, that a general system of composition for recusancy be introduced. This, he argued, might yield the equivalent of more than a subsidy a year to the crown. However, he added that he himself did not approve of the proposal.36 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 290, 331-2, 451, 633-4; xix. 290-1; HP Commons, 1558-1603, ii. 117.

Saye was recorded as present in the upper House at the start of the second session on 5 Nov. 1605, when the Gunpowder Plot was discovered. He subsequently petitioned the king for part of the property forfeited to the crown by the plotters, but was unsuccessful.37 HMC Hatfield, xvii. 532, 634. Absent for the first two sittings after the session resumed in January 1606, he missed only two further sittings (on 26 Apr. and 5 May) before 17 May, the last time on which he was present before the session ended 11 days later. In total, he was recorded as attending 70 of the 85 sittings, 82 per cent of the total, and was named to 31 out of 72 committees. Of local interest to Saye was the measure to make the Thames navigable to Oxford, which he was named to consider on 6 March. He received a number of appointments relating to religion and moral reform, including bills to prevent swearing, to enforce the Sabbath and to maintain readers in divinity at Oxford and Cambridge.38 LJ, ii. 365a, 384a, 386b. In addition, he was instructed to confer with the Commons about the laws for preservation of religion and ecclesiastical matters.39 Ibid. 367b, 411a. He was probably most interested in the committee for two bills concerning recusants to which he was appointed, on 29 April.40 Ibid. 388a, 419b. He again made no recorded speeches, although that may merely reflect the paucity of the sources rather than any reticence on his part.

Saye was absent when the third session started on 18 Nov. 1606. Two days later he was excused, ‘being sick at his house’.41 Ibid. 451a. He was only marked as present once before the session was adjourned for Christmas on 13 Dec., and therefore gave his proxy to Henry Howard^*, earl of Northampton.42 Ibid. 449b. On the face of it this is surprising, as Northampton, though nominally Protestant, was in reality crypto-Catholic. However, he was also an influential privy councillor whose support Saye was presumably seeking. Saye resumed his seat when the session began again in February 1607. He was marked as absent at only two sittings before May (9 and 28 Mar.), but was missing between 4 and 12 May inclusive. He again failed to attend the final days of the session. Absent on 25 June, he returned for the next sitting on the 27th but then missed the final nine sittings before the prorogation on 4 July. In total, he attended 66 of the 106 sittings, 62 per cent of the total. He again made no recorded speeches, but was named to more than half the committees of the upper House (21 out of 41), all his appointments being concerned with legislation. The measures involved included those to stop drunkenness, prevent the enforcement of Canons not confirmed by statute, and preserve wood and timber.43 Ibid. 473b, 489b, 503a, 528b.

Final years, 1608-12

Saye continued to lobby Salisbury with money-making projects after the Parliament was prorogued. In February 1608 he proposed a levy on those who converted pastures to cultivate woad, and also a scheme for stamping bars of lead. At the same date he complained that his son, William Fiennes^* (subsequently 1st Viscount Saye and Sele), had fallen under the influence of a group of radical puritans led by Richard Hathaway, the vicar of Chipping Norton, who had apparently alleged publicly that James I was a Catholic at heart. However, there is no evidence that Salisbury pursued Saye’s allegation against Hathaway, who had in fact resigned his benefice the year before.44 HMC Hatfield, xx. 47-8, 92; CCEd. Sojourns in London to lobby for one of his money-making schemes may explain why Saye attended the prorogation meetings in February and November 1609.45 LJ, ii. 544a, 545a.

The fourth session of the first Jacobean Parliament convened in February 1610. Saye was recorded as attending all but three of the 95 sittings, 97 per cent of the total. By this date he had been reconciled to his wife, and as a result the couple lived together during the session in a house near Leadenhall, in the City. On 15 June Sir Richard Paulet^‡, who was related to his wife’s first husband, attended a sermon at a nearby church with Saye and his wife, and afterwards dined at their house.46 HMC 3rd Rep. 12; ‘Paulet 1610’, f. 15.

This session is much better documented than the earlier stages of the Parliament, and consequently Saye is recorded as having spoken no less than 12 times. In addition, he was appointed to 20 of the upper House’s 58 committees.47 LJ, ii. 608b. As a former royal ward, Saye would no doubt have been particularly interested in the Great Contract, but he played only a limited part in the negotiations. He was not added to the Lords’ committee to confer with the Commons about the Contract until 14 July, although on 18 Apr. he was one of the Lords sent to the king about the proposal to compound for tenures, and on 26 June he reminded the House that the Commons were expecting to be informed of the ‘the king’s lowest price’.48 Ibid. 579b; Procs. 1610 ed. E.R. Foster, i. 116.

Saye was no doubt referring to the Contract when he spoke on 27 Feb. following the request of the lower House for a conference about Dr Cowell’s controversial book, The Interpreter. He argued that the Commons should be ‘lovingly and respectively [sic] dealt with, for else it might much hinder matters of greater consequence’. He also moved for a committee to attend the conference, to which he himself was then named.49 Procs. 1610, i. 19, 180; LJ, ii. 557b. When reporters were appointed on 2 Mar., Saye objected to the naming of Richard Bancroft^*, archbishop of Canterbury, on the grounds that Cowell had dedicated his book to the primate, for which remark he was rebuked by Salisbury.50 Procs. 1610, i. 23-4.

Saye’s primary interest in the fourth session was religion. On 6 Mar. he wrote to the clerk of the parliaments, Robert Bowyer^‡, and Bowyer’s assistant, Owen Reynolds, requesting a copy of the bill against clerical pluralism and non-residence, which was given a first reading that day. He asked that it be ‘scribbled out as fast as you can’, and assured them that he would pay the full fee for an accurate text no matter how rough.51 PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/7, f. 5; LJ, ii. 562. When the bill was given a second reading on 30 Apr., Saye moved that ‘the general drift and scope of the bill being so good, I beseech your lordships it may be committed’. He argued that ‘if one man cannot be captain of two garrisons, much less [could he have] the charge of souls in two places’. He then proceeded to cite the case of the parishes of Deane and Ashe in Hampshire, the advowsons to which he had sold in 1590 to a wealthy Londoner, James Deane (d.1608), in an attempt to demonstrate the evils of pluralism. Two years after the sale, he said, letters patent had been secured uniting the two parsonages. Deane had given the united living to his nephew, a non-preaching minister, and subsequently one of the churches had fallen into disrepair and was used as a cattle-shed.52 Procs. 1610, i. 72, 224-5; VCH Hants, iv. 200-1, 206-7.

Although Saye’s speech was hardly material to the question at hand, since Deane’s nephew was not a pluralist, it provoked an immediate response from the bishops. George Abbot^*, bishop of London (later archbishop of Canterbury), argued that the Deane and Ashe case was untypical, while John Bridges^*, bishop of Oxford and thus Saye’s own diocesan, informed the lords that Saye himself had encouraged pluralism by giving his chaplain, John Craker, the livings of Broughton and a neighbouring parish.53 Procs. 1610, i. 225-6; CCEd.

The bill was subsequently considered by a committee of the whole House on 3 May, on which occasion Saye stood up to speak at the same time as Salisbury. As it was judged that he had risen first, Saye was allowed to begin. He again spoke in favour of the measure, arguing that ‘the councils [and] the word of God, are both against pluralities’. Responding to Bancroft’s argument that the bill was inequitable because laymen would still be able to own multiple impropriations, he stated that he was in favour of reforming impropriations, but added that this was not the issue at hand. Nevertheless, the bill was rejected, although the Lords agreed to appoint a committee to report on the issue of non-residence and pluralism, to which Saye was appointed.54 Procs. 1610, i. 75-6, 231; LJ, ii. 587b.

Saye was probably behind the bill to separate the parishes of Ashe and Deane, which was given a first reading in the upper House on 12 May. Saye himself was named to the committee a week later.55 LJ, ii. 593a, 595b. The following day he wrote to Bowyer with a list of witnesses he wanted to appear before the committee. Bowyer probably informed Saye that he would first need the House’s authorization, which Saye obtained on 24 May.56 HMC 3rd Rep. 12; LJ, ii. 598b-9a. Saye was not recorded as speaking in favour of the measure until the third reading, when, presumably hoping to appear impartial, he tried to disassociate himself from the measure by stating that the bill had been introduced at the suit of the parishioners. Although the measure was enacted, the two parishes were to remain united until the present minister died or resigned. This being the case, the minister was ordered by the Lords to enter into a bond promising to pay for a preacher to serve both parishes, which document Saye himself witnessed.57 Procs. 1610, i. 112; LJ, ii. 621a-22a; PA, HL/PO/PB/1/1609/7J1n43.

When the bill against enforcing Canons not confirmed by statute was given a second reading on 11 June, Saye criticized Richard Neile^*, bishop of Lincoln (later archbishop of York), for saying that the Commons were hostile to bishops. He also urged that the measure be committed. He himself was named to the committee, and also to those for the bills against blasphemy and scandalous ministers.58 Procs. 1610, i. 102; LJ, ii. 611a, 629a, 641b.

Saye’s remaining speeches concerned private legislation. On 19 Feb. he queried provisions in two bills, both of which had just been given a second reading. One sought to confirm compositions between the crown and the copyholders of the manors of Wakefield while the other sought to do the same for the tenants of Clitheroe. He could see ‘no reason’ why those tenants who had not yet compounded should reap the benefit of the bill. In response Salisbury, now lord treasurer, argued that legislation confirming their estates had been promised to the tenants in order to persuade them to compound. Saye was subsequently named to the committee for the two bills, but he remained dissatisfied, and raised his objection again when the measures were reported by Salisbury three days later. He was again answered by the lord treasurer, whereupon the bills were passed.59 Procs. 1610, i. 10-11; LJ, ii. 553b, 554b. On 3 May Saye spoke in favour of the bill to revoke conveyances of land which had been made by Sir Henry Crispe, a Kentish knight, and was named to the committee.60 Procs. 1610, i. 229; LJ, ii. 586b. When the bill against Sir Stephen Proctor, a notorious projector, was given a second reading on 14 July, Saye argued that Proctor should be given a hearing, which was granted three days later, whereupon the case was referred to a committee, of which Saye was a member.61 Procs. 1610, i. 138; LJ, ii. 647b.

By the time of the fourth session Saye, eager to make money as always, had turned his interest towards the Ulster plantation. In April 1610 he wrote to Salisbury seeking to recruit the lord treasurer to lead a group of undertakers, of which he was one, interested in securing property in Armagh. He also informed Salisbury that he intended to go to Ulster himself in the summer or the following spring.62 SP63/228/76C. In June Saye secured between 3,000 and 4,000 acres in Ulster, and one of his servants subsequently crossed over to Ireland. By July 1611 he had made over the property to his Oxfordshire neighbour, Sir Anthony Cope^‡.63 SO3/4, unfol. (13 June 1610); CSP Ire. 1608-10, p. 550; PROB 11/121, f. 143; CSP Carew, 1603-24, p. 225.

Saye attended 17 of the 21 sittings of the fifth session, which assembled in October 1610, 81 per cent of the total, and was appointed to all but one of the seven committees named by the upper House. His legislative appointments included measures for the preservation of timber and the creation of municipal breweries. He was also named, on 25 Oct., to attend the final conference on the Great Contract. He made no recorded speeches.64 LJ, ii. 669a, 670a, 671a.

In 1610 Saye handed over control of his estates to his son, William, with whom he had presumably been reconciled.65 Bard, 29. He was in poor health in 1611, and by November of that year was confined to Boughton. He recovered sufficiently by the following January to travel to London, but by the time he made his will, on 17 July 1612, he was ‘weak in estate of body’. He left his wife personal property in a house in Great St Bartholomew’s, Smithfield ‘wherein I and she did lately dwell’ and requested that he be buried in the aisle of Broughton church with his ancestors as cheaply as possible ‘in respect of the greatness of my debts’. A schedule of these, included in his will, totalled over £2,200. Set against this sum, however, was more than £500 due to him, a sum which probably did not include money he had lent out on the security of Sir Oliver St John^* (probably Saye’s stepson-in-law, the future 1st earl of Bolingbroke) and Sir William Turpyn. This money Saye bequeathed to his daughter. He requested that his chaplain, Craker, preach at his funeral and appointed his son, William, as his executor. The lord chancellor, Thomas Egerton^*, Lord Ellesmere (later 1st Viscount Brackley), who was connected to Saye’s son by marriage, and a neighbour, were named as overseers.66 Bodl., Tanner 115, ff. 59, 72; 283, f. 166; PROB 11/121, ff. 142-3v; Bard, 30-1; HMC Hatfield, xvi. 74. The parish register for Broughton covering this period does not survive, and the inquisition post mortem carried out following his decease does not record the date of Saye’s death. Nevertheless, Saye was certainly dead by 11 Oct. 1612, when Sir Anthony Cope referred to ‘the late Lord Saye’. His will was not proved until 6 Feb. following.67 Beesley, 260-1; WARD 7/14/102; C142/167/72; PROB 11/121, f. 143v.