RUSSELL, William (1616-1700)

Career before 1661

The Russells owed their fortunes to their service under the Tudors. HP Commons, 1660-90, iii. 365. Bedford House on the Strand, built for the 3rd earl in the late sixteenth century, remained the principal London residence until its demolition in the early eighteenth century, but during the seventeenth century the family migrated from their seat at Chenies in Buckinghamshire to the more substantial Woburn Abbey in Bedfordshire. Survey of London, xxxvi. 205-7; Architectural Hist. xlvi. 58. Despite their prominence in Bedfordshire society, the family’s interest in the county at the time of the Restoration is said to have been ‘minimal’. Their principal interest lay in the borough of Tavistock in Devon, which they had acquired at the dissolution of the monasteries, and in Middlesex, where they owned considerable estates in Bloomsbury and at Covent Garden. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 125, 207; Survey of London, xxxvi. 35, 130. Extensive estates in reclaimed land in the Fens completed their principal interests.

William, Lord Russell, was returned for the family seat at Tavistock in both the Short and Long Parliament, where he was partnered with John Pym^‡. He was a prominent member of the Commons, closely involved in organizing the trial of Thomas Wentworth^†, earl of Strafford. The death of his father in May 1641 elevated him to the Lords as 5th earl of Bedford and made him master of an estate worth at least £8,500 per annum. It also projected him forward as one of the grandees of the parliamentarian cause. J. Adamson, Noble Revolt, 233, 359; Scott Thomson, Life in a Noble Household, 44-45. Having been named by Parliament as lord lieutenant of Devon and Somerset, Bedford served as a cavalry commander at Edgehill in July 1642. By the following year, however, in common with several other peers, he resolved on attempting reconciliation with the king. He returned to the court and served on the royalist side at the first battle of Newbury in September 1643, but his reception at Oxford was frosty and he spent the remainder of the conflict and the Interregnum in effective retirement at Woburn. Scott Thomson, Life in a Noble Household, 69, 72. Assessed by the committee for advance of money at £3,000 in November 1645, Bedford was eventually discharged from his fine in October 1651 on payment of a £200 fee. CCAM, 416.

From the abolition of the House of Lords until the Restoration, Bedford appears to have distanced himself from politics. He concentrated his attentions instead on the education of his children—his two eldest sons spent time in the late 1650s travelling abroad—and on the completion of his father’s building works in London and on the Fenland drainage scheme (the Bedford Level). These interests would then dominate his parliamentary activities for the first decade following the king’s return. In 1659 Bedford survived an attack of smallpox, the disease that had carried off his father. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), ii. ff. 4, 14, 18, 20, 52, 88. By the following year he had resumed his political engagement and was once more accounted one of the leaders of the presbyterian cabal, eager to impose limitations upon the Restoration settlement. Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 75; Bodl. Clarendon 71, f. 22. During the Interregnum Bedford had appointed the Dissenting minister, Thomas Manton, to the living of St Paul’s Covent Garden, and although after the Restoration he conformed to the Church of England and was a regular attender of church services, he always maintained a private presbyterian chaplain at Woburn and remained a prominent patron of dissenting clergymen. Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, 463; R. Beddard, ‘Nonconformist Responses to the Onset of Anglican Uniformity’, Bodleian Lib. Rec. xvii. 106-8, 120.

In his assessment of March 1660, Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, noted Bedford as one of the lords who ‘withdrew a little’ from politics during the Civil War, but while some peers were reticent about the prospects for returning to the Lords, Bedford early on made it clear that he intended to sit. According to one source he was warmly encouraged to do so by several other peers. He took his seat in the reconstituted House of Lords on 27 Apr, the same day that the Speaker, Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester, ordered that Bedford and three other peers should be written to requiring their attendance. Bodl. Carte 214, ff. 65, 69-70; Swatland, 19. On his first day he was named to the committee for privileges and appointed to the committee for drawing up heads for a joint conference with the Commons for settling the nation. He was present for 82 per cent of all sitting days in the first part of the Convention before the summer adjournment, during which he was named to a further 14 committees. On 27 July he introduced James Butler, marquess (later duke) of Ormond [I], as earl of Brecknock. Three days later he was named to the committee for the bill for draining the Great Level of the Fens, a business that continued to engage his attention over the ensuing years. Swatland, 38.

Bedford took his seat in the second part of the session on 7 Nov. 1660 after which he was present on 64 per cent of all its sitting days. Although he was named to just two committees, both concerned business with which he was particularly interested. On 15 Dec. he was named to the committee for the Hatfield Level bill and on 22 Dec. that for making Covent Garden a parish, an area in which he commanded great influence as the principal landlord and as patron of the church, which had been built by his father. Although the House voted to pass the Covent Garden bill, with amendments, on 27 Dec., disagreements between the parish of St Martin-in-the-Fields and that of St Paul’s, Covent Garden, which St Martin’s continued to regard as a precinct rather than a parish proper, persisted until the principal differences were resolved in about 1666. It was not until 1670 that Bedford finally acquired a warrant to hold a market every day, bar holidays, at Covent Garden, thus securing the lucrative profits there for this estate. Survey of London, xxxvi. 35, 55, 130; CSP Dom. 1670, p. 101.

Although Bedford was notable as one of only two of the ‘presbyterian cabal’ not to receive high office following the Restoration (the other being Wharton), he appears to have been content enough with his lot, having secured a pardon from the king. He paid £43 12s. 6d. for passing the patent. He then played a prominent role at the coronation of April 1661, carrying St Edward’s sceptre and expending almost £1,000 on his equipage for the procession from the Tower. Scott Thomson, Life in a Noble Household, 85-86. As an indication of the family’s diminished influence, though, at the elections for the Cavalier Parliament Bedford’s second son, William Russell^‡, was involved in a double return and only secured his seat on petition in December. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 207, iii. 365.

The Cavalier Parliament, 1661-78

Bedford took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 8 May 1661, after which he was present on two thirds of all sitting days. He was absent on 11 May when the standing committees were nominated and seems not to have been added to them following his return to the House two days later. On 16 May he was named to the committee for the bill for draining the Lindsey Level and two days later he presented a petition on behalf of the adventurers for draining the Great Level of the Fens. The petition requested that the House take action to prevent rioting in the area and damage to the developments during the ongoing drainage works, which was ordered accordingly. Although he was noted as being present on the attendance list on 20 May, Bedford was recorded as missing without explanation at a call of the House that day. He resumed his seat the following day and on 7 June he was named to the committee for the bill to restore to Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby lands sold during the Commonwealth. On 25 June Bedford was appointed one of the tellers for a division concerning the appointment of a day for hearing the claim of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, to the lord great chamberlaincy, a claim Bedford was later thought to support. On the following day he was appointed to the committee for enclosing ground at Parson’s Green. Added to the committees for a further 14 bills in the course of the session, on 25 Nov. Bedford was again missing at a call of the House, only resuming his seat a week later on 2 December.

Following the passing of Derby’s estate bill, Bedford was one of a number of peers to sign the protest of 6 Feb. 1662. The protestors comprised a mixed alliance of former parliamentarians and royalist legalists, such as Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, who were reluctant to overturn legally concluded property transactions, or unwilling to open the flood gates to questioning all transactions carried out under the Commonwealth. Add. 33589, ff. 220-1. Once again involved in overseeing a measure concerned with Fenland drainage, on 16 May Bedford was named to the committee for confirming the acts for draining the Fens, and three days later he was one of four peers ordered to attend the king to request his direct intervention in ensuring the preservation of the works on the Fens, as the House would not be able to pass legislation in the time left before the prorogation. Consequently the commission appointed to oversee the Great Level was empowered by proclamation, which also forbade ‘any disturbance to be offered to the earl of Bedford in his works there.’ CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 383. Bedford entertained the king at dinner in July and the following month a declaration further emphasized Bedford’s authority by providing for the freedom of worship of the French Walloon community on Thorney Island, subject to the ‘approval’ of Bedford and Matthew Wren, bishop of Ely. TNA, PRO 31/3/110, p. 195; CSP Dom. 1661-2, p. 459.

Bedford took his seat in the following session on 18 Feb. 1663, after which he was present on approximately 60 per cent of all sitting days. Named to six committees in the course of the session, on 6 Mar. he moved the House to uphold his privilege over a case in which he was involved as a trustee for payment of the debts of his recently deceased brother-in-law James Hay, earl of Carlisle; a stop to all proceedings was duly ordered. Bedford’s standing at court was demonstrated the following month when he escorted the new French ambassador to his audience with the king. PRO 31/3/111, pp. 101-2. Wharton reckoned Bedford a likely supporter of the attempt by George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol in early July to impeach Clarendon. As Bristol was married to his sister Anne, Bedford may well have felt some family obligation.

Bedford took his seat in the following session on 21 Mar. 1664, of which he attended three quarters of all sitting days. On 4 Apr. he was excused at a call of the House, his absence presumably owing to business rather than ill health as the same day he hosted Richard Boyle, Baron Clifford of Lanesborough (later earl of Burlington), at dinner and the following day he resumed his place in the chamber. Chatsworth, Cork mss misc. box 1, diary of earl of Cork and Burlington diary. Absent at the opening of the next session, he was again missing at a call on 7 Dec. and finally resumed his place on 16 Dec. 1664, after which he was present on just under 55 per cent of all sitting days, and was named to three committees. In April 1665 he was named as one of the parties in the chancery suit brought by Lionel Cranfield, 3rd earl of Middlesex, against John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater. Herts. ALS, AH 1090; HEHL, EL 8106. Bedford played host to James Stuart, duke of York, at Woburn during his summer progress but he failed to attend the brief session of October 1665 convened in Oxford. CSP Dom. 1664-5, p. 497; Herts. ALS, AH 1094. In December of that year he was troubled by the death of his younger brother, Edward Russell, ‘which goes very near me’. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. xxxvi), f. 7.

Bedford was one of those summoned to attend as one of the judges for the trial of Thomas Parker, 15th Baron Morley and Monteagle, at the close of April 1666. Along with the majority of the peers he returned a verdict of guilty of manslaughter. Stowe 396, ff. 178-90; HEHL, EL 8398. He returned to the House for the following session on 18 Sept. of which he attended a little more than half of all sitting days. On 21 Sept. he introduced his newly promoted Bedfordshire neighbour and political rival, Robert Bruce, earl of Ailesbury. Ailesbury’s son, Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, would later describe Bedford as ‘a graceful old nobleman’, though he was dismissive of his lack of interest in the county and criticized his failure to be suitably hospitable to his neighbours. Ailesbury Mems. i. 182-3. Excused at a call on the grounds of poor health on 1 Oct, Bedford resumed his seat on 25 Oct. and during the remainder of the session was named to nine committees, five of them connected either with his interests in London or his ongoing works in the Fens. On 12 Nov. he received the proxy of Theophilus Clinton, 4th earl of Lincoln, which was vacated on 17 December. Interests in London no doubt led to Bedford joining in the protest of 23 Jan. 1667 against the resolution not to add a clause granting a right of appeal to the king and House of Lords to the bill for houses burnt down in the Great Fire. The same day saw the first reading of a bill for the sale of some of Bedford’s late brother’s estate at Chiswick to satisfy creditors, which was considered in committee two days later. Both Bedford and his brother, John Russell, guardians to Edward Russell’s son, William, professed themselves satisfied with the bill, which was accordingly reported and passed without amendment the following day. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, f. 165. On 4 Feb. Bedford was again named to a committee overseeing a further bill concerning the development of the Bedford Level and the following day he was named to the committee for rebuilding the city of London.

Bedford took his seat at the opening of the following session on 10 Oct. 1667, after which he was present on almost 70 per cent of all sitting days and was named to 15 committees, among them that for the bill for taxing adventurers in the Fens. On 12 Dec. the Fen bill was considered in committee but the chairman, Richard Sackville, 5th earl of Dorset, questioned whether Bedford and certain other peers being interested parties ought to be of the committee. Dorset referred the matter back to the House, but the committee resolved by 11 votes to seven not to adjourn to the following day and no mention appears to have been made of Bedford’s continuing membership of the committee when five more peers were added to it on 13 December. Ibid. f. 224. During the month-long recess between the close of December 1667 and beginning of February 1668, he played host to the king at Bedford House on Twelfth Night (6 Jan.), before taking his seat on 6 February. HMC Le Fleming, 54. Absent at the opening of the following session, he was noted as being missing, but en route to London, at a call of the House on 26 Oct. 1669. He took his seat the following day on 27 Oct, after which he attended almost 53 per cent of all sitting days but was named to just one committee, that established on 9 Nov. to consider the papers submitted by the commissioners of accounts. He returned to the House at the opening of the ensuing session on 14 Feb. 1670, of which he attended just under 60 per cent of all sitting days and was named to 17 committees. On 22 Feb. he was one of a minority of peers to vote against concurring with the king’s desire that both Houses erase the records relating to their disputes over the case of Skinner v. East India Company. Mapperton, Sandwich mss, journal vol. x. 196-204. He was, however, largely absent from this first part of the session before the summer adjournment, as he stopped attending after 14 Mar. after only 19 sittings. This absence may have been owing to illness, for Bedford appears to have suffered from poor health in the spring of 1670 for which he was prescribed a series of purges. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), iii. f. 28. He was well enough to resume his seat following the adjournment on 14 Nov. and he proceeded to attend a little under two-thirds of the sitting days of this part of the session. On 17 Apr. he was placed on the committee for the London streets bill, which would have been of interest to him as a major owner of property in the capital. Five days later Bedford was one of eight members of the House ordered to present the thanks of the House to the king for his answer to the address concerning the wearing of clothes of English manufacture. That day, 22 Apr., this long session was prorogued in some disarray as the Houses could not agree on the bill for additional impositions on foreign commodities, to whose committee Bedford had originally been nominated on 29 March. His stance in this dispute cannot be determined.

In May 1671 Bedford was one of those to inspect the papers of his recently deceased brother-in-law Edward Montagu, 2nd earl of Manchester. Later that summer he was appointed one of the trustees for an annual pension for another brother-in-law, the earl of Bristol. The same year he was appointed to the governorship of Plymouth. Mapperton, Sandwich mss, journal vol. x. 394-400; CSP Dom. 1670, pp. 258, 406. The appointment coincided with the beginning of a concerted effort by the king to woo Bedford. In early May 1672 it was rumoured that Bedford was to be awarded a Garter, which was conferred on 29 May. Verney ms mic. M636/25, Sir R. to E. Verney, 2 May 1672. The same month he was involved in a case with Edward Montagu, 2nd Baron Montagu of Boughton, over disputed repairs at Wainsford bridge. HMC Buccleuch, i. 318.

Bedford took his seat at the opening of the following session on 4 Feb. 1673, all of whose sitting days he attended, during which he was named to 18 committees. On 8 Mar. he was nominated as one of the peers to convey the House’s thanks for the king’s speech concerning the suspension of the penal laws. That same day, 8 Mar., he was also named to the committee concerning the bill for prohibiting new buildings in London, which would have been of direct personal relevance to him. Bedford did not appear in the ensuing four-day session of late October, but his high rate of attendance was repeated in the session of January 1674. He was present on almost 90 per cent of all sitting days and named to six committees, including the joint committee with the Commons for inspecting the treaty with France, appointed in the first days of the session.

Following the prorogation of 24 Feb. 1674 Bedford was noted among several peers said to have been ‘laid aside and out of the Privy Council’. Bodl. Tanner 42, f. 81. At the beginning of 1675 he was said to have been one of those agitating for Ormond to return to England in time for the new session. Carte 38, f. 238. By the spring of that year, he had aligned himself quite clearly with the ‘country’ opposition, and probably with Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. His decision was perhaps influenced by the arrest of his countess and a number of other notables at Thomas Manton’s meeting house earlier in the year. Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. to E. Verney, 1 Mar. 1675; HMC Buccleuch, i. 321; Lacey, Dissent and Parliamentary Politics, 76-77. Bedford’s identification with the opposition was made apparent in the session of April 1675. Having taken his seat on 13 Apr, he was present on over 95 per cent of all sitting days. He was again named to six committees, and, according to the author of A Letter of a Gentleman of Quality, took a prominent part in the debates surrounding the passing of the bill to prevent dangers to the government by disaffected persons (the ‘non-resisting test’ bill), giving his ‘countenance and support’ to the ‘English interest’ by opposing the measure. He was ‘so brave in it’ that he signed three of the protests against the measure: on 21, 29 Apr. and 4 May. Timberland, i. 138-41, 157. Two days after this last, he protested once more, but on a different matter, - against the resolution to reassure the Commons that the Lords would consider their privileges during the debates over Sherley v. Fagg.

Following the session’s close, Bedford found time to visit his interests in the Fens. Family disagreements also required his attention when his youngest son, George Russell, sought to be reconciled with his father following his injudicious marriage to the daughter of a London merchant. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), iii. ff. 90, 92. In advance of the new parliamentary session, Bedford on 23 Oct. 1675 received the proxy of John Crew, Baron Crew, also a country peer, which was vacated by the prorogation. He took his seat in the House once more on 25 Oct. 1675 after which he was present for half of all sitting days. Over the course of 11-12 Nov. he was named to three committees. He failed to attend after 17 Nov. and was thus absent for the debates of 20 Nov. over addressing the king to request a dissolution. He was noted in a number of lists among those absent lords in favour of the address and, according to one source, was said to have lodged his proxy in support of the measure. Bodl. ms Eng. hist. e. 710, ff. 14-15.

During the prorogation Bedford presented a ‘noble bounty’ to Trinity College, Cambridge, a donation of £100 towards the building of the new library designed by Christopher Wren^‡. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), iii. f. 106; Bodleian Lib. Rec. xvii. 108. In June 1676 he again served as one of the tryers of a fellow peer, Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, and again found with the majority, declaring Cornwallis to be not guilty of murder. HEHL, EL 8419; State Trials, vii. 157-8; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss, fb 155, pp. 460-1. Bedford took his seat at the opening of the new session on 15 Feb. 1677, having received Crew’s proxy once more the previous day, which was again vacated by the prorogation, and attended almost 73 per cent of all sitting days. Despite his association with Shaftesbury, he did not join with the lords insisting that Parliament had been dissolved by the prorogation, though he was granted leave to visit the lords in the Tower on 10 March. He was named to 29 committees throughout the course of the lengthy and much interrupted session, including that for the Deeping Fen bill, to which he was added on 23 Feb. 1678. On 16 Apr. 1677 Bedford entered his dissent at the resolution to discard the amendments made by the Lords to the supply bill. In the spring of 1677 he was acknowledged as ‘worthy’ by Shaftesbury.

Bedford suffered the loss of his heir, Francis, Lord Russell, in January 1678. Russell’s death proved to be something of a relief for the family as the young man had for long been a sufferer from some form of chronic depression and by 1674 had been accounted a ‘complete invalid’. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), ii. f. 46; Scott Thomson, Life in a Noble Household, 224. Some even speculated that his premature demise saved Bedford the trouble of disinheriting him in favour of his more capable, younger brother, William, who was by this time one of the closest associates of Shaftesbury in the Commons. Verney ms mic. M636/31, Sir R. to E. Verney, 17 Jan. 1678. On 4 Apr. Bedford voted Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, guilty of manslaughter. He returned to the House on 23 May 1678, the opening of the session that followed closely on the heels of the former one and on 25 May he again received Crew’s proxy, which was once more vacated by the prorogation. Named to 18 committees, his patronage of Dissenting communities was perhaps reflected by his nomination to the committees for two bills to provide relief for Reformed Protestant strangers in England. On 7 June he was one of 11 peers to subscribe the protest against the resolution to proceed with investigating Robert Villiers’ claim to the viscountcy of Purbeck as one single matter, without considering the several separate issues the case raised. He dissented again on 5 July from the resolution to ascertain the relief of the petitioner in the cause Marmaduke Darrell v. Sir Paul Whichcot.

Bedford took his seat in the following session on 30 Oct. 1678, the last of the Cavalier Parliament, after which he was present on just over 70 per cent of all sitting days, though he was named to just three committees; one of these was the committee to examine the allegations of the popish plot, to which he was added on 7 December. On 15 Nov. in a committee of the whole house on the test bill he voted in favour of making the declaration against transubstantiation stand under the same penalties as the required oaths. He entered his dissent on 20 Dec. from the resolution to agree with a series of the amendments proposed in committee to the supply bill which would take out the provisions included by the Commons for paying the money into the chamber of London, and restore the normal arrangements for their receipt by the exchequer. Six days later he voted against insisting on this Lords’ amendment to the supply bill, and entered his dissent when it was carried in the affirmative. The following day he voted in favour of committing the lord treasurer Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds).

The Crisis of 1678-85

The Russell interest at Tavistock held firm in the elections for the first Exclusion Parliament in February 1679 when Bedford’s younger son, Edward Russell^‡, was returned with Sir Francis Drake^‡, 3rd bt, while his eldest surviving son William, now styled Lord Russell, topped the poll for Bedfordshire. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 125, 207. Bedford took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Mar. and attended the six days of the first, abandoned, session before resuming his seat on 15 Mar. for the second session, of which he attended 87 per cent of all sitting days. During the session he was named to five committees including that for the bill, committed on 2 May, to enable his neighbour at Tavistock, Sir Francis Drake, to raise portions for his daughters. In advance of the session Danby had reckoned Bedford an opponent in a series of forecasts compiled at the beginning of March. On 8 Apr. Bedford was nominated one of those to wait on the king to request the appointment of a lord high steward to preside over the trial of Danby and the impeached peers and he communicated the king’s answer in the affirmative later that day. On 14 Apr. Bedford voted to pass the Commons’ bill, which levelled attainder against the former lord treasurer. On the last day of that month he was again nominated to wait on the king to communicate the House’s thanks for his speech that day. By that time Bedford was once again believed to be in favour at court and was thought to be one of the peers the king intended to entrust with the management of affairs by placing him on the remodelled Privy Council. Verney ms mic. M636/32, Sir R. to E. Verney, 21 Apr. 1679. This promotion, though, was not effected. Following the long debate in the House on the afternoon of 8 May, Bedford entered his dissent at the rejection of the Commons’ request for a committee of both Houses to consider the trials of the impeached lords. Wharton for some reason categorized him as both a supporter and an opponent of such a joint committee, but it is clear that he supported establishing it as on 10 May he was nominated one of the reporters of a conference to discuss the issue and he subsequently entered his dissent when the House again rejected the proposal. On 20 May Bedford was again requested to wait on the king to convey the House’s request that the gates of the Tower of London might be secured at night. He reported the result of the audience the following day. On 13 May he signed the protest against the resolution that the bishops had a right to remain in court during capital trials, and ten days later (23 May) he registered his dissent from the decision to instruct the Lords delegates meeting with the Commons to discuss the trials that they could give no other answer regarding the bishops’ voting. That same day he also subscribed the dissent from the decision to proceed with the trials of the four Catholic lords before that of Danby. At the end that day he was also added to the committee for the bill concerning the estate of Henry Howard, styled Lord Mowbray (later 7th duke of Norfolk). On 27 May he entered one last dissent from the resolution to insist upon the vote confirming the bishops’ right to remain in court until a sentence of death was pronounced.

Edward Russell was returned once more for Tavistock in the election of August 1679 and the following month Lord Russell was also successful in retaining his seat at Bedfordshire. That same month of September Bedford was approached by his neighbour, Oliver St John, 2nd earl of Bolingbroke, for his support in developing a navigation scheme extending to the town of Bedford. Although he assured Bolingbroke of his desire to serve him, Bedford advised against proceeding too quickly, reminding him of his own interest in the Fens, ‘upon account whereof it would be thought that I stirred in it, not so much out of public respect as out of a private one.’ Only too aware from his experiences with the Bedford Level of the passions such developments caused, he also cautioned Bolingbroke against proceeding with the scheme until he could be sure of the support of the local gentry, who, Bedford warned, ‘as yet I find are exceedingly averse’. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), iii. f. 124.

In early December 1679, Bedford was one of the peers to sign the address to the king for summoning Parliament, though Sir Robert Southwell^‡ noted that although Bedford came to town intending to accompany Shaftesbury and the other peers when they presented the address on 7 Dec. he fell ill (perhaps diplomatically) and was unable to attend with them in person. HMC Ormonde, iv. 566; Domestick Intelligence, 9 Dec. 1679. Bedford was expected to entertain the king at dinner in May 1680 but in the event it was Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington, who had the honour of the royal presence. Add. 75363, Sir T. Thynne to Halifax, 13 May 1680; Add. 75360, Sir W. Hickman to Halifax, 29 May 1680. Bedford then took his seat in the new Parliament that met finally on 21 Oct., during which he attended all but seven sittings (88 per cent) and was named to three committees. On 15 Nov. he voted against putting the question that the exclusion bill be rejected on its first reading and against the bill’s ultimate rejection; he also subscribed the dissent against the rejection of the bill. On 23 Nov. he voted in favour of appointing a joint committee to consider the state of the kingdom, and subscribed the protest when the motion failed to be carried. Bedford found William Howard, Viscount Stafford, guilty of treason on 7 Dec. and on 18 Dec. he was one of three peers nominated to address the king for leave to bring Stafford to the House to communicate further information about the plot, which was granted. Carte 72, f. 511. The same day he registered his dissent at the rejection of a proviso added by the Commons to the bill for regulating the trials of peers which would have exempted from its provisions all trials upon impeachment. On 7 Jan. Bedford subscribed the protest against the decision not to put the question whether Sir William Scroggs should be committed upon the articles of impeachment brought up from the Commons. Bedford’s important role in the circle around Shaftesbury during this session is indicated by the part he played in getting one of Shaftesbury’s speeches printed. The speech had been delivered on 23 Dec. 1680 during the debate on the king’s speech of 15 December. Haley, Shaftesbury, 612; A Speech lately made by a Noble Peer of the Realm (1680). According to one report, while Shaftesbury was speaking, Wharton took down notes, which were then passed to Bedford who in turn passed them on to his son, Lord Russell, who conveyed them to the printer, Francis Smith: the whole chain purposely designed to protect each person from accusations of breaching the House’s privilege. Swatland, 230; UNL, Pw2 Hy 345. Bedford’s role in the printing of such speeches may explain a later approach made to him via his chaplain, John Thornton, in 1683 from one Anne Terry to facilitate the printing of an account of the circumstances surrounding the death of Arthur Capell, earl of Essex. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. xxxvi), f. 40.

Bedford was one of 16 peers to petition the king in January 1681 to summon the new Parliament to Westminster and not relocate it to Oxford. Vox Patriae (1681), pp. 6-7. Although unsuccessful in this, Bedford was perhaps compensated by seeing both Russell and Edward Russell successful in retaining their seats at the elections of February 1681. Bedford’s continuing hostility to Danby was reflected in a forecast drawn up in advance of the following Parliament that suggested he remained opposed to bailing the imprisoned peer. Bedford took his seat on 21 Mar. and attended on each of the seven days of the brief Oxford Parliament. On 25 Mar. he was named to the committee for receiving information concerning the plot and the following day he subscribed the protest at the resolution to proceed against Edward Fitzharris by common law rather than by impeachment. Following the dissolution, in May Bedford was one of those to petition the king to pardon Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, who had been indicted for the murder of William Sneeth. TNA, SP 29/415/192; HMC Ormonde, n.s. vi. 67.

The period between the close of the Oxford Parliament and the summoning of that of James II in 1685 was dominated for Bedford and his family by the events surrounding the Rye House Plot and the trial of his heir, Lord Russell, for his suspected role in the conspiracy. Initially, the Russell proprietorial interest at Tavistock came under attack when the king imposed a borough charter in August 1682 effectively removing Bedford’s control of the town. Far more damaging, though, was Lord Russell’s arrest the following summer and his subsequent conviction for treason. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 211, 268; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, box 1, folder 33. Despite the involvement of friends such as Lady Ranelagh, who advised both Bedford and Lady Russell on the best way to submit their petitions for a reprieve to the king and duke of York, the sympathetic interposition of Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, on Russell’s behalf and Bedford’s reputed offer of £100,000 to the king in return for Russell’s life, their efforts proved to be in vain. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. xxxvi), ff. 23-24; Letters of Lady Rachel Russell, p. cxv; Carte 217, f. 486. York, in particular, proved intractable and on only one point, his desire for Russell to be executed outside Bedford House, did the king refuse to humour him. Scott Thomson, Life in a Noble Household, 325. Bedford himself was perhaps fortunate not to be implicated as his name occurred on at least one list of suspected contributors to the plot brought before the Privy Council. CSP Dom. 1683 (July-Sept), p. 256. In 1684 Bedford’s wife died of apoplexy, leaving him grief-stricken: his sister, Anne, countess of Bristol, wrote to exhort him not to allow himself to be so cast down that he neglect his duty to his family. Verney ms mic. M636/38, Sir R. to J. Verney, 15 May 1684; Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), iv. f. 57.

James II and the Revolution

Although the accession of James II offered Bedford little prospect of any improvement in his diminished condition, both he and his son, Edward Russell, signed the Bedfordshire address congratulating the king on his succession. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 126. In spite of his hostility to the new regime, Bedford also continued to take part in hawking parties at Hampton Court. The Russell interest remained muted, though, and in the 1685 election for Tavistock no member of the Russell family was returned for only the second time since the Restoration. Bedford was also concerned about the security of the succession to the earldom of Bedford and he sought legal advice to assure him that his grandson, Wriothesley Russell, later 2nd duke of Bedford, had not been tainted by his father’s conviction. Bedford paid £3 to secure a letter granting him permission not to attend the coronation. Scott Thomson, Life in a Noble Household, 232-3, 329, 389. Once he had roused himself from his rural hibernation to attend the opening of Parliament on 19 May 1685, he was not expected to remain in London for long. Yet he was present on 93 per cent of all sitting days in the session. Verney ms mic. M636/40, A. Nicholas to Sir R. Verney, 12 May 1685. Named to six committees, including a further bill concerning Deeping Fen, on 22 May he was one of six peers to vote against razing from the Journal the votes concerning the imprisonment of the Catholic lords in the Tower. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iii. 8.

Noted as opposed to repeal of the Test in January 1687, in May Bedford was included in a list of those opposed to the king’s policies in general. The same month he engaged in correspondence with William of Orange, thanking him for his ‘compassion for my late calamity and gracious disposition to comfort an unfortunate family which I should be less concerned for than I am if I could doubt any branches of it would ever fail in any point of duty to your Highness’s person.’ CSP Dom. 1686-7, p. 442. Bedford returned to London in August 1687 for the expected marriage between his daughter, Lady Margaret, and Sir William Fermor, later Baron Leominster, though in the event the match failed to materialize and Lady Margaret later married her cousin, Edward Russell, later earl of Orford, instead. Verney ms mic. M636/42, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 10 Aug. 1687. The reason for the failure of the Russell-Fermor alliance may have been Bedford’s reluctance to advance a sufficiently large portion. Add. 75376, ff. 72-73. Bedford was again listed among those opposed to repeal of the Test in November and as one of those opposed to the king’s policies in January 1688. In May a report that Bedford’s daughter was to marry William Wentworth, 2nd earl of Strafford, proved inaccurate, though negotiations between the two families appear to have persisted for the following two years.

Bedford was one of a number of peers suggested as possible sureties for the seven bishops in June 1688. Tanner 28, f. 76. The following month it was rumoured that he was to be admitted to the Privy Council. With reports of William of Orange’s expected invasion, Bedford prepared to move from Woburn to the ancestral home at Chenies. It is unclear whether this was so that he could remain out of the way of the invasion, which was expected to come from the north, or to be better able to link up with Orange’s forces. Add. 70014, f. 84; Letters of Lady Rachel Russell, 180. Two of Bedford’s sons were among the first to join the prince when he landed in the west country and on 6 Nov. it was reported that Bedford was one of seven peers to be interrogated about their suspected role in the operation. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 475; HMC Le Fleming, 218. Despite this, when James called a ‘Great Council’ on 27 Nov. in response to the invasion, he made a point of appealing to Bedford. In a famous exchange, the king praised Bedford as ‘an honest man’ with ‘great credit and can do me signal service’, only for the earl to rebuff his advances: ‘Ah sir, I am old and feeble; I can do you but little service; but I had once had a son that could have assisted you; but he is no more.’ Bedford’s pointed reminder of James’ role in securing Lord Russell’s execution reportedly left the king speechless for some moments. Letters of Lady Rachel Russell,, p. cxxviii. Having delivered his piece, Bedford presumably retreated to Chenies, as a letter of 15 Dec. urged him to return to London once more, ‘not so much to make his compliment as to assist and give his countenance and counsel in this strange and intricate conjuncture.’ HMC Rutland, ii. 124. Bedford duly returned to the capital in time to take his place at the session of the provisional government in the queen’s presence chamber on 21 December. The same day he signed the association, and the following day he took his place in the meeting at the House of Lords, which he continued to attend on 24 and 25 December. Kingdom without a King, 124, 151, 153, 158, 165.

Despite the Russell family’s quasi-saintly status following the ‘martyrdom’ of Lord Russell, all did not go their way in the aftermath of the Revolution. William Russell (probably Bedford’s nephew) was unsuccessful in his efforts to be appointed physician in ordinary to William. Bedford was disappointed in the elections for the Convention, with both Middlesex seats going to Tories, though the family interest in Tavistock was successfully re-established with the return of Robert Russell^‡ in partnership with Sir Francis Drake. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), iv. f. 85; HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 207-8. Taking his seat at the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689, Bedford was thereafter present on almost 82 per cent of all sitting days and was named to 35 committees. On 31 Jan. he voted in favour of declaring William and Mary king and queen and registered his dissent when the House voted against the Commons’ statement that James II had ‘abdicated’ and that ‘the throne was vacant’. On 4 Feb. he voted to agree with the Commons’ use of the word ‘abdicated’, and again dissented when the House rejected it. He was then placed on a committee to prepare for a conference on the issue. The following day Bedford was named with three other peers to form a secret committee to investigate the circumstances surrounding Essex’s death. A collection of affidavits on this matter in the earl’s possession presumably relates to these investigations. On 6 Feb. Bedford again voted in favour of employing the term ‘abdicated’ and the phrase ‘that the throne is thereby vacant’, which was now carried and led to the offer of the crown to William and Mary. On 14 Feb. Bedford was sworn to the new Privy Council. NAS, GD 157/2681/40. On 6 Mar. he was one of 17 peers to subscribe a protest against the passage of the bill for better regulating the trials of peers and on 8 Mar. he was ordered to present the House’s thanks to the king for his response to the Address of both Houses. The same day, the bill for reversing his son’s attainder, which had been recommended to the House by the king, was read a second time; it was passed nem. con. three days later on 11 March.

Prior to the Revolution Bedford’s family had been assured of William of Orange’s support by the prince’s agent, Dijkvelt. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. xxxvi), f. 60. The king’s role in ensuring the passage of the act reversing Russell’s attainder underscored this. In March 1689 Bedford was appointed to the lieutenancies of Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire, and the following month the new king offered Bedford a further mark of his esteem with the offer of elevation to a dukedom. Bedford initially rejected the proffered advancement, ‘because he had many sons that would then all be lords, and he had not a sufficient estate to support their honour’. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 512; Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. v. 84. He remained active in the House and on 18 Apr. he was appointed with three other peers to attempt to reconcile the estranged James Annesley, 2nd earl of Anglesey, and his countess. Two days later, Bedford again rejected Strafford’s advances towards one of his daughters on account of the ‘bad state of Ireland’ and because he was ‘satisfied he should give his daughter… a just cause to complain he did not consider her whole interest, if he should provide her no better provision of fortune, than your lordship’s [Strafford’s] present circumstances can make for her.’ Letters of Lady Rachel Russell, 209-10. On 22 May Bedford received the proxy of William Cavendish, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire (Devonshire’s son, William Cavendish, styled Lord Cavendish, later 2nd duke of Devonshire, had married Lord William Russell’s daughter Rachel). The proxy was vacated by Devonshire’s resumption of his seat on 9 July. On 31 May Bedford voted in favour of reversing the perjury judgments against Titus Oates. On 12 July Bedford subscribed the subsequent protest at the adoption of amendments to the bill. The following day he was named to the committee appointed to prepare for a conference on the bill concerning the succession, for which Bedford was also named a manager.

In September 1689 Bedford was approached by John Tillotson, later archbishop of Canterbury, on behalf of John Moore, later bishop of Ely, for the living of St Paul’s Covent Garden, made vacant by the elevation of Simon Patrick, the incumbent, to the bishopric of Chichester. Although Bedford rejected Moore and sought the views of Patrick concerning Richard Kidder, later bishop of Bath and Wells, of whom he had a high opinion, the living was eventually awarded to Samuel Freeman. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), iv. f. 117; Letters of Lady Rachel Russell, 244-5. In the same month Bedford responded to a request for a self-assessment with an estimate that his personal estate amounted to £9,000 clear of all debts. He undertook to commission his agent to pay whatever was due. Chatsworth, Halifax mss, B13. Absent at a call of the House on 28 Oct. Bedford took his seat in the second session of the Convention on 14 Nov. 1689, and was present on approximately 67 per cent of all sitting days. Named to 11 committees during the session, on 23 Jan. he subscribed the protest against the resolution to remove from the corporations bill the declaration that the surrender of charters under Charles II and James II was ‘illegal and void’. In a list he compiled between October 1689 and February 1690 Carmarthen (as Danby had become) classed Bedford as an opponent of the court.

The Parliament of 1690

Bedford’s interest at Westminster was put to the test in the elections of March 1690, when his preferred candidate, Philip Howard^‡, was beaten into third place by the Tories Sir William Pulteney^‡ and Sir Walter Clarges^‡. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 397. The family interest was more successful in Bedfordshire, where Edward Russell was returned, in Tavistock, which was secured by Robert Russell, and in Whitchurch in Hampshire, where James Russell was elected in spite of Bedford’s apparent concerns that his son did not know his ‘own business’. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), iv. f. 91. Bedford took his seat in the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690 and was thereafter present for almost 80 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to eight committees. Excused at a call of the House on 31 Mar., on 5 Apr. he registered his protest against the resolution to agree to the amendments to the bill for recognizing William and Mary as rightful and lawful sovereigns, and on 13 May he registered a further protest against the decision not to allow the corporation of London more time to be heard during the proceedings for the bill for restoring its charter. Bedford returned to the House for the following session on 14 Nov. 1690, but his attendance declined significantly: he was present on just 44 per cent of all sitting days, though he was still named to 12 committees. The following year he undertook first to support Philip Howard and then his grandson-in-law Lord Cavendish in the by-election for Westminster caused by Pulteney’s death. He excused himself for not backing Thomas Owen^‡, whom he claimed he would have otherwise have wished to have seen ‘a Parliament-man with all his heart’. In the event both Howard and Cavendish declined to stand and Owen, having refused to stand down in Cavendish’s favour, was beaten into second place by Sir Stephen Fox^‡. HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 397; v. 49; Letters of Lady Rachel Russell, 291-2.

In the late summer of 1691 Bedford was said to be suffering from a pain in his leg, which was feared to be ‘more than the gout’ and he was consequently absent at the opening of the new session in October. Carte 79, f. 405. On 10 Oct. it was rumoured that he had died; although he was still alive, he remained unwell and was marked sick at a call of the House on 2 Nov. 1691. Add. 70015, f. 204. He finally took his seat on 3 Dec. and the same day was named to the bill for enfranchising copyhold land in the manor of Albury and North Mims. Present on approximately 30 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to four committees and towards the end of 1691 he was noted by William George Richard Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, as someone likely to support Derby’s efforts to secure restoration of lands alienated during the Interregnum. Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9. Although Bedford received a further mark of the king’s approbation in January 1692 when he was appointed lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of Middlesex during his grandson’s minority, it was clear that his age was beginning to catch up with him. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 336. On 12 Feb. 1692 he registered his proxy with John Egerton, 3rd earl of Bridgwater, which was vacated by his return to the House on 19 Feb, but he attended just four more days before absenting himself for the remainder of the session.

In April 1692, hard on the heels of his appointment as custos of Middlesex, Bedford sparked a dispute in the county when his effort to replace Simon Harcourt^‡ (1653-1724) as clerk of the peace with his own steward, John Fox, was rejected by the justices of the peace by fifteen votes, despite Fox’s nomination enjoying the support of Sir Rowland Gwynne^‡ and Thomas Wharton, later marquess of Wharton. Bedford was then successful in issuing a quo warranto against Harcourt, following which Fox was sworn into office, by only six, by the justices of the peace at the May quarter sessions. Harcourt nevertheless refused to accept his removal and succeeded in securing his reinstatement the following year. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 409, 448; HP Commons, 1690-1715, iv. 220. At the same time as he was struggling with the bench over the appointment of Fox, Bedford triggered a row with Henry Compton, bishop of London, over his decision to remove 16 justices from the bench. Compton appealed to the queen to overturn Bedford’s decision and was successful in having a number of them reinstated.

Bedford was appointed one of the commissioners for proroguing Parliament on 12 Apr. 1692 and again on 24 May. He took his seat in the following session on 21 Nov, after which he was present on 59 per cent of all sitting days and was named to 17 committees. On 31 Dec. he appears to have voted against committing the place bill, though the position of his name on Ailesbury’s list recording the division is ambiguous. He was absent in any case on 3 Jan. 1693, and thus missed the division at the third reading which saw the bill defeated. At the same time, Bedford was assessed as likely to be in favour of passing the duke of Norfolk’s divorce bill and he was in the House on 2 Jan. 1693 to vote in favour of reading the bill. That month, Bedford entertained the king at Bedford House. He was then absent from the House from 18 to 27 Jan. though he ensured that his absence was covered by registering his proxy with Devonshire. Having resumed his place, on 31 Jan he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to proceed with the trial of Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, and on 4 Feb. he found Mohun not guilty of murder. Nominated one of the reporters of the conference on the duchy of Cornwall bill on 10 Mar, the same day he was named to the committee to draw up reasons to insist on the Lords’ amendment to the bill. On 14 Mar. he was named one of the reporters of the conference concerning the bill for encouraging privateers and for prohibiting trade with France. Bedford’s eldest surviving son, Edward Russell, was appointed to the place left vacant by Gwynne’s removal in March and the same month it was again rumoured that Bedford would be offered a dukedom. Tanner 25, f. 21; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 61; Add. 29574, f. 161.

Absent from the opening of the following session of November 1693, at the beginning of December Bedford was reported once more to be seriously unwell. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), v. f. 133. His poor health was presumably the reason for his failure to attend the majority of the session but his indisposition came at an inconvenient moment as the continuing dispute with Harcourt, who had been reinstated as clerk of the peace that summer, came before the House on 12 December. CSP Dom. 1693, p. 427. Reported to be still too ill to attend on 21 Dec, Bedford was forced to rely on Ford Grey, Baron Grey of Warke (later earl of Tankerville), to argue his case. HMC Rutland, ii. 153. Despite Edward Russell laying ‘great stress upon my Lord Grey’s doing it, because no man in England can speak better to such a point than he can’, Harcourt succeeded in having his restitution confirmed. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), v. f. 133; HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 370. Still ‘dangerously ill’ in January 1694, Bedford was well enough to play host to the king again in March and he finally rallied to attend two days at the close of the session in April. His recovery coincided with his final acceptance of elevation to the dukedom of Bedford, though a report two months earlier that he was also to be appointed to the lieutenancy of Devon proved to be inaccurate. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 250, 275, 280. The wording of the patent for Bedford’s dukedom, passed on 11 May 1694, made it clear that the award was as much an acknowledgment of the deserts of Lord Russell, ‘the ornament of his age, whose great merit it was not enough to transmit by history to posterity’, as of Bedford’s own. In a further distinction, underlining the sense in which the peerage was Russell’s reward, Bedford’s grandson (Lord Russell’s son), Wriothesley Russell, was permitted to bear the courtesy title of marquess of Tavistock. Equally significant was the manner in which the patent granted the dukedom to Bedford for life and then conveyed the peerage to Tavistock and his heirs, which was possibly an effort to overcome any potential challenges to Tavistock’s rights as a result of his father’s attainder. The new duke’s concerns about the costs of supporting his dignity were reflected in the fees of £1,204 11s. 9d. he was required to pay to various officials for passing the patent as well as £33 10s. to the officers of the House for his entry as duke, which were hardly alleviated by the traditional grant of £40 per annum towards the support of his new status. Woburn Abbey ms, 5E-17; Scott Thomson, Life in a Noble Household, 334.

Bedford suffered a fit towards the end of October, which was presumably the reason for his absence from the opening of the new session of November 1694. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), vi. f. 36. He was excused at a call of the House on 26 Nov. but had recovered sufficiently to take his place as duke of Bedford, introduced between Charles Powlett, duke of Bolton, and Devonshire, on 8 December. He was thereafter present on approximately 32 per cent of all sitting days. Although he was named to just three committees, Bedford took a prominent role as one of the managers of a series of conferences. On 16 Feb. 1695 and again on 23 Feb. he was nominated one of the reporters of the conference for the trials for treason bill and on 18 Feb. he was present in the House to witness the first reading of the bill enabling his heir, Tavistock, to improve his estates in Surrey. Tavistock’s bill was passed less than a week later on 27 Feb. at a cost to Bedford of some £75. Woburn Abbey ms, 5E 18. In his already doubtful state of health Bedford evidently over-exerted himself and in the midst of seeing Tavistock’s bill through suffered another onset of his recurrent sickness. From 25 Feb. until 7 Mar. he was absent from the House, explaining on 23 Feb. to his granddaughter, Lady Roos (the daughter of Lord Russell, who had married John Manners, Lord Roos, later 2nd duke of Rutland), how ‘my indisposition heightened by my sitting at such an unseasonable rate in the House rendered me unfit’. Belvoir, Rutland mss, Letters and Papers xxi, Bedford to Lady Roos, 23 Feb. 1695. Bedford was again present in the House to oversee an amendment to Tavistock’s bill, which had been proposed by the Commons and agreed to on 29 Mar. and on 18 Apr. he was nominated a reporter of the conference examining the act for continuing and making perpetual a variety of former laws. Two days later he was nominated once again one of the managers of a conference for the trials for treason bill.

Bedford was granted a further distinction in May 1695 when he was created Baron Howland. CSP Dom. 1694-5, p. 452. This was said to have been ‘done to gratify Mrs Howland’ whose daughter married Tavistock later that month. Add. 46527, f. 86. On 18 June Bedford was again nominated one of the commissioners for proroguing Parliament and, following the dissolution, his sons Robert and James were returned for Tavistock on the family interest. Carte 239, ff. 19-20; Verney ms mic. M636/48, J. to Sir R. Verney, 20 June 1695. Bedford was reported to be troubled by the expense incurred in the election for Middlesex but despite his misgivings ‘his agents… endeavoured to make an interest’ there too. HMC Buccleuch, ii. 245-6. The election was complicated by divisions in the Whig ranks. Initially, it was expected that the 15-year-old Tavistock would stand with Sir John Wolstenholme^‡ but another contender, Craven Peyton^‡, also proposed standing, claiming Bedford’s support. In the event neither Peyton nor Tavistock, whom Bedford seems to have considered too young, contested the seat and the Bedford interest rallied around Admiral Edward Russell. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 539; HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 370-1; Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), vi. f. 132. Matters went more smoothly at Westminster where Charles Montagu, later earl of Halifax, was returned with Bedford’s approbation. Chatsworth, Letter series 1, 88.0.

The Parliament of 1695 and last years

Bedford was absent from the opening of Parliament on 22 Nov. 1695. A few days before, on the 16th, it had been reported that he intended being in London at the beginning of the following month. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. xxxvi), f. 73. In the meantime, he again covered his absence by registering his proxy with Devonshire on 22 November. In spite of his intention of being in London at the beginning of December, it was not until 2 Jan. 1696 that Bedford eventually took his seat in the House, after which he was present on 34 days in the session, approximately 27 per cent of the whole. On 27 Feb. he signed the Association and on 9 Mar. he was named to the committee overseeing Tavistock’s bill, one of three committees to which he was named during the session. On 20 Mar. he wrote to John Manners, 9th earl (later duke) of Rutland (the father of Lord Roos, who had married Lord Russell’s daughter Catherine) urging him to promote the Association, ‘by influencing those whom you can in the county of Leicester’ and on 13 Apr. Bedford was present in the House for between eight and nine hours participating in the debate over the oaths and the association bill. The strain proved too much for him and on 18 Apr. 1696 he sat for the last time, though not before he was able to fulfil Rutland’s request that he present the Leicestershire association to the king. It was, he assured Rutland, received ‘very graciously… and gave both his majesty and all your relations and friends abundant satisfaction to find your lordship so zealous for the king and government.’ HMC Rutland, ii. 159, 160; Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), v. f. 111.

For the remainder of his life Bedford struggled with poor health. In the summer of 1696 he ‘suffered violent fits of the colic’ the result perhaps of an ‘obstinate thick phlegm in his stomach’. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 81; Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. xxxvi), f. 80, Lady Russell to J. Thornton, 30 June 1696. His poor health did not prevent him from continuing to take an active interest in politics and in December he communicated his wish that his tenants would support Henry Neale^‡ (who was standing with Wharton’s backing) at the Buckinghamshire by-election. Verney ms mic. M636/49, A. Nicholas to Sir J. Verney, 26 Dec. 1696. On 11 Dec. 1697 Bedford registered his proxy with Devonshire again, which was vacated by the close of the session. Eager to see his family comfortably provided for ‘before I leave the world’ and to exert his local influence, in the summer of 1698 he wrote to Lord James’s prospective mother-in-law, ‘since my bodily infirmities deny me liberty to go abroad’ recommending the match with her daughter. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), vi. f. 106. The same year he appealed to both secretaries of state on behalf ‘a poor condemned woman of Bedford’ whom he hoped they would find ‘a fit object of the queen’s mercy’. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), i. f. 74. He continued to distribute the traditional Christmas boxes and new year gifts to the various attendants at court and in Parliament, expending over £13 on such presents in 1698. Scott Thomson, Life in a Noble Household, 355. Bedford’s health fluctuated through the summer of the following year. Woburn Abbey ms (HMC 2nd Rep. viii), vii. ff. 5, 11, (HMC 2nd Rep. xxxvi), ff. 98, 100. In the late summer of 1700 he suffered a relapse from which he did not recover. Reports of the severity of his condition circulated throughout the first week of September. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 684; Add. 72517, f. 62; Verney ms mic. M636/51, E. Adams to Sir J. Verney, 7 Sept. 1700. He died on 7 Sept. aged 84 and was buried 10 days later in the family vault at Chenies. Add. 72509, ff. 27-8.

Within days of Bedford’s death rumours emanated from the house of his son, Lord Robert Russell, that the will would be contested, though there is no indication that any such challenge was made. A report of the following month described how the duke had suffered a last indignity when his hearse ‘was overthrown and broke all to pieces’, a far cry from the dignified exit he had planned. In his will Bedford had requested that his funeral might be ‘plain and decent’. He desired the rector of St Paul’s Covent Garden, Samuel Freeman, to preach a sermon but, commenting on the funeral shortly afterwards, Cary Gardiner wished that Freeman ‘had slept all the time he read that flattering sermon, which is still talked of’. Verney ms mic. M636/51, C. Gardiner to Sir J. Verney, 19 Sept, 10 Oct. 1700. Besides the private funeral, Bedford made provision for the construction of a tomb commemorating himself as well as his wife and children at Chenies. In addition he made a series of bequests totalling over £2,700 to family and servants as well as annuities of at least £300 and provision for the satisfaction of the payment of outstanding sums on his children’s portions, which may well have been the grounds for any disputes. He named Lady Russell, John Hoskins of Gray’s Inn and Nicholas Martyn of Lincol’’s Inn as his executors and was succeeded by his grandson, Tavistock, still a minor at the time of his succession, ‘the richest peer in England’, as 2nd duke of Bedford. PROB 11/460; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 685.