PAGET, William (1609-78)

The Pagets owed their rise under the Tudors to the loyal service of Sir William Paget^† (later Baron Paget), who was rewarded with extensive former monastic lands in Staffordshire, Buckinghamshire and Middlesex. S. Shaw, Staffordshire, 15, 25, 212–13; VCH Staffs. ix. 131–2; VCH Bucks. iii. 65, 69, 287; VCH Mdx. iii. 192–3, iv. 7. Sir William displayed impressive political flexibility, acting for four of the five Tudor monarchs, including Queen Mary, who recognized his qualities despite his Protestantism. The rebellion and subsequent attainder of the Catholic Thomas Paget^†, 4th Baron Paget (sometimes referred to as the 3rd baron because his predecessor, the 2nd baron’s immediate heir, held the title as a baroness in her own right, but died as an infant), caused a brief hiatus in their fortunes. Even when the family estates were returned to William Paget, 5th Baron Paget, between 1597 and 1604, a punitive fee farm rent of £750 tore into his comparatively modest annual receipts of approximately £2,000. Financial uncertainty continued to plague the family well into the seventeenth century and goes some way towards explaining the 6th baron’s determination to secure a lucrative court office and his disgruntlement at his inability to do so. Collections for a Hist. of Staffs. ser. 4 xix. 131.

Through his marriage, Paget became attached to the extended families of Rich and Devereux. Paget’s sisters also made influential matches to prominent puritan grandees but the wayward Holland’s inability to maintain his interest at court reflected on his son-in-law. HP Commons, 1660–90, ii. 634, iii. 657; Collections for a Hist. of Staffs. ser. 4, xix. 128. By the beginning of the Civil War, besides the lieutenancy of Buckinghamshire, Paget had only succeeded in acquiring the relatively minor office of keeper of New Lodge Walk in Windsor Forest (Holland being constable of the castle). CSP Dom. 1641–3, p. 279. His failure to secure more prominent office does not appear to have been a result of being ‘half-witted’ as William Cecil, 2nd earl of Salisbury, was said to have taunted him. Collections for a Hist. of Staffs. ser. 4, xix. 134.

As with his father-in-law, Paget’s sympathies fluctuated during the progress of the Civil War, though it would be a mistake to assume that he always followed Holland’s lead. C. Russell, The Fall of the British Monarchies, 211, 262, 297; HJ, xix. (2), p. 345. Having been confirmed as lord lieutenant of Buckinghamshire by Parliament, he ‘began to boggle, and was unfixed in his resolutions’. B. Whitelocke, Mems. of the English Affairs, i. 170–1; P. Zagorin, The Court and the Country, 325. Experiencing a dramatic change of heart, Paget rallied to the king at York, where he was understandably treated with considerable suspicion. HMC 5th Rep. 141; Clarendon, Rebellion, ii. 181-82; V. Stater, Noble Government, 62–63; Russell, Fall of the British Monarchies, 512. Although usually associated with the presbyterians it is possible that Paget’s conversion to the royalist cause at this time owed something to the influence of his chaplain, the uncompromising Laurence Womock, later bishop of St Davids.

Paget raised a regiment of foot for service in the opening campaign of the war but his behaviour did little to alleviate the doubts of the royalists. In November 1644 he determined to desert Charles I for Parliament once more. Having handed himself over to his cousin Robert Devereux^†, 2nd earl of Essex, he was imprisoned briefly and fined for his misconduct but was shortly after permitted to return to London. In April 1645 he took the covenant. HMC 5th Rep. 141; B. Whitelocke, Mems. of the English Affairs, i. 324, 423. By 1648 his loyalties were once again in doubt. He was implicated in Holland’s rising during the second Civil War and he strenuously opposed the execution of the king. CCC, 872. Despite this, and having survived his father-in-law’s fall, by the early 1650s Paget appears to have settled his conscience and determined to be ‘a good commonwealthsman’. HMC De L’Isle and Dudley, vi. 482. In 1652 he was discharged from his sequestration by the provisions of the Act of Pardon and was allowed to reside at his house at West Drayton. CCC, 872.

By the Restoration, Paget’s stance had altered once again and he was now understood to be in favour of the king’s return. Despite his fluctuating loyalties, he was noted by Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, as being one of those peers who had been ‘with the king’. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 63. Paget undoubtedly hoped to achieve some restitution from the new regime, his woeful financial situation being such that, despite supposedly enjoying an income of £3,000 p.a. (£1,000 of which was from lands in Staffordshire), after payment of debts and annuities he had a mere £23 to live on each year. Collections for a Hist. of Staffs. ser. 4, ii. 40, xix. 132.

Paget delayed taking his seat in the House until he was directly summoned to do so. He returned to the Lords on 16 May in company with John Lovelace, 2nd Baron Lovelace, and Montagu Bertie, 2nd earl of Lindsey, when he was named to the sessional committees for privileges and petitions. He sat for a little over half of the remainder of the Convention, during which he was named to a number of select committees. On 18 June he reported from the committee for privileges considering the case of Philip Stanhope, 2nd earl of Chesterfield. In August he assumed the family responsibility for nominating one person to be excepted from the Act of Indemnity as propitiation for Holland’s execution. He took the curious step of naming John Blackwell^‡, who was already dead, ‘and would name no other’. HMC 5th Rep. 155, 207.

Paget failed to sit during the second session of the Convention, perhaps being preoccupied with financial problems. Determined to get to grips with his finances, he began a lengthy legal tussle that year with Richard Sackville, 5th earl of Dorset, and Sir Job Harby over the leasing of the customs on sea-coal. Eg. 2549, f. 102. Paget’s share had been inherited from his father-in-law, Holland. HJ, xix. (2), p. 333. In October, Paget petitioned the king on the state of his finances, raising the particular problem of the fee-farm rent, but he appears to have been unsuccessful in obtaining any redress. CSP Dom. 1660–1, p. 334. In January 1661 he was included in a list of peers who had failed to pay their poll bills. Bodl. Clarendon 74, f. 91.

Paget’s electoral interest had declined in the years since the civil wars. His authority in Great Marlow, which had never been certain, was now barely apparent, but at the general election he employed his interest at Tamworth successfully on behalf of his steward, John Swinfen^‡. HP Commons, 1660–90, i. 390, iii. 519. He was also granted a minor ceremonial role at the coronation, officiating as assistant cupbearer. Kennet, Register and Chronicle, 422. On 8 May 1661 Paget took his seat in the first session of the Cavalier Parliament. He proved to be a relatively active member, attending approximately 65 per cent of sitting days, during which he was named to some 29 committees. On 14 May he was named to the committee considering the bill for the reversal of the attainder of Thomas Wentworth^†, earl of Strafford, a measure which he had been eager to see enacted 20 years before. In July he was believed to be opposed to Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, in his efforts to secure the great chamberlaincy, perhaps indicating a preference for the presbyterian Lindsey. Carte 109, f. 317. In December Paget submitted a petition to the lord chancellor, Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, over his ongoing attempt to secure the lease on the customs on coal. CSP Dom. 1661–2, p. 189. On 6 Feb. 1662 he entered his protest at the resolution to restore Charles Stanley, 8th earl of Derby, to his estates. Add. 33589, ff. 220–1. Paget was presumably well acquainted with the case, having been nominated to the committee considering Derby’s bill over the course of two sessions. LJ, xi. 132, 274. He also appears to have been an active member of the committee for drawing up an act repealing the acts of the Long Parliament. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fb 159, no. 16.

Paget took his seat at the opening of the second session on 18 Feb. 1663. He was thereafter present for approximately 62 per cent of the session, during which he was named to 20 select committees. In common with many presbyterians, he was predicted as being a likely supporter of the attempt by George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, to impeach Clarendon. Carte 81, f. 224. On 19 Mar. he was again named to the committee considering the bill for repealing acts of the Long Parliament and on 4 Apr. he was nominated as one of those to attend the king to give thanks for his answer to the Lords’ petition concerning popish priests.

Paget took his seat in the new session on 16 Mar. 1664. He then proceeded to attend 94 per cent of all sitting days of the two-month session. Nominated to ten committees, in May he was entrusted with the proxy of his brother-in-law, Robert Rich, 2nd earl of Holland, which was vacated by the close of the session. Paget’s increasing authority within the House may have been indicated by his chairing at least one of the sessions of the committee deliberating on the conventicles bill; as such he used his influence to attempt to ameliorate the bill’s likely effects on Protestant nonconformists. Swatland, 178. On 21 Apr. he was named to the committee examining the bill against gaming and on 10 May to that concerning the bill to continue the act for regulating the press.

Paget was absent without explanation at a call of the House on 7 Dec. 1664 but he resumed his seat ten days later and was named to a dozen committees over the course of the session. Absent for much of the following year and a half, in April 1666 he was one of those peers appointed to try Thomas Parker, 15th Baron Morley and Monteagle, for murder, and concluded with the majority that Morley was guilty of the lesser charge of manslaughter. State Trials, vi. 775. He took his seat once more on 26 Sept. 1666 but attended just three days during the whole 91-day session. At the instance of John Granville, earl of Bath, Paget submitted a testimony in April 1667 to help settle a dispute raging between Bath in his office of groom of the stole and the various grooms of the bedchamber, all vying for the perquisite of supplying the king’s linen. Paget was in no doubt that the honour lay with the groom of the stole, an office formerly held by his father-in-law, Holland. Paget pprs. D603/K/2/5, f. 16.

Paget returned to the House for two days in July 1667, before taking his seat at the opening of the new session on 10 October. The following day he was named to the usual sessional committees. Present for approximately two-thirds of all sitting days in the session, he was excused at a call of the House on 29 Oct. before resuming his seat on 6 November. The following day he was named to the committee considering the trial of peers bill, and on 10 Dec. he was nominated one of the reporters of a conference with the Commons concerning freedom of speech in Parliament. On 15 Apr. 1668 he was added to the committee considering the case between Thomas Skinner and the East India Company.

Paget was absent from the House from 2 May 1668 until October of the following year. On 26 Oct. 1669 he was again missing at a call. He sent word that he was travelling to London and resumed his seat three days later. He was then present for approximately 63 per cent of sitting days. On 10 Nov. he moved for the bill for taking away the Lords’ right to try original causes, which had been sent up from the Commons the week before, to be read once but then rejected. The measure was thrown out by an overwhelming majority. Harris, Sandwich, ii. 307–9; Mapperton, Sandwich mss, Journal, x. 73–78. Paget was also involved during the term as one of the 2^nd earl of Holland’s trustees in a case triggered by the latter’s dismissal of his steward, Joseph Garrett. TNA, C5/485/54. Paget took his seat at the opening of the new session on 14 Feb. 1670, during which he was named to some 16 committees, including that considering the charitable uses bill of John Dolben, bishop of Rochester, which Paget chaired on 3 March. Despite this he attended less than a fifth of the session as a whole and was afterwards absent from the House for the ensuing two years.

Financial concerns once more came to the fore during the summer of 1670. In May Paget rejected a suggestion, probably by Swinfen, that he marry off one or more of his unmarried daughters, declaring that:

Sir though you are pleased to say I am no sufferer by any money raised lately for my son Thomas, and my two daughters’ portions, yet give me leave to say I am a great sufferer, and find daily such inconveniences by the late raising of moneys, as I may live perhaps to repent it. Paget pprs. D603/K/2/4, f. 25.

The following month, word that the king was signing commissions for the sale of fee-farm rents encouraged Paget to appeal to Sir Joseph Williamson^‡ to assist him in obtaining papers originally submitted to Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington (whom Paget praised for having assisted him ‘nobly’) in a further effort to solve his financial crisis. CSP Dom. 1660–70, p. 280. Again, no progress appears to have been made. Excused at a call in February 1671, Paget’s avoidance of the House seems to have been on the grounds of expense, as he wrote of enjoying ‘the free air at Drayton’, though Swinfen commended him for keeping ‘out of the heat of bustles and factions’ in Parliament. Paget pprs. D603/K/2/2, f. 28.

In a letter of 11 Apr. Paget, referring to the continuing case between Holland and Joseph Garrett, explained the delay in securing satisfaction in the measure on account of the fact that:

Parliament does not rise so soon as you probably may imagine. New imposts are daily invented such as were never heard of before, which keeps the wheels still going in spite of their teeth, who would fain live quietly at their own houses; and till there be an adjournment, or a prorogation, no possible hopes of good success in my petition, I shall carefully attend it, when I am informed ’tis a fit time for it, but truly, not to abuse and flatter myself, I expect very little good by my address to his Majesty, ’tis true I have much right by my side, but ’tis profit and private interest in these righteous times that we live in which governs all, more is to be done by a lusty bribe than by any friend whatsoever … RO, Paget pprs. D603/K/2/4, Paget, 11 Apr. 1671.

In October 1671, this and other concerns led Paget to profess himself to be at his ‘wits end what to do, or how to come off with my credit and reputation’. By this time, his debts amounted to between £500 and £600, ‘for payment of which I am much solicited and molested’. Appealing to Swinfen to rescue him from his predicament, Paget exclaimed:

For God’s sake try what may be done in reconciling these different interests, they distract me much, I am in so great disorder of mind, and in such a peck of troubles all these unlucky cross accidents as I know not well what to say or think, if I write nonsense you must excuse me. RO, Paget pprs. D603/K/2/4, f. 44.

Paget was also troubled by a separate ongoing dispute between him and Sir Walter Aston, 2nd Baron Aston [S], over rights in the forests of Staffordshire. The cause was one that had been fomenting steadily between the families since the early years of the century and was now in danger of rumbling on without resolution because of Paget’s disorganization. He was chided by Swinfen for failing to respond to Aston’s latest approach in July 1672, and the long-suffering agent could only suggest that ‘it’s so long since that your lordship may choose whether you will answer it or no. Only if you do, then I humbly conceive the excuse for the delay must be your forgetfulness.’ RO, Paget pprs. D603/K/2/2, f. 51.

Perhaps frustrated with the court’s unwillingness to assist him, Paget became increasingly identified with the opposition of Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury. Meanwhile his attendance of the House continued to fluctuate with his own uncertain health. He returned after his lengthy absence on 4 Feb. 1673, after which he was present for approximately 73 per cent of the session. Sick during the summer, he was cautioned by Swinfen against returning to Parliament precipitately in October 1673, and advised to delay until his ‘present distempers’ were alleviated: ‘There is nothing worse for you both in regards of the piles and looseness than motion, and exposing yourself to take cold, which may soon cause a relapse into a more dangerous condition.’ Paget pprs. D603/K/2/2, f. 60. Paget heeded this advice and failed to attend the brief session that month. Presumably in better health, he took his seat once more at the opening of the ensuing session on 7 Jan. 1674 and attended all bar one of the 38 sitting days. He was similarly assiduous the following year, attending 40 of the 42 sitting days of the session of April 1675. On 13 Apr. he registered his dissent at the resolution to present an address of thanks for the king’s speech. He then subscribed the protest against the resolution of 21 Apr. that the Test bill did not encroach upon the privileges of the lords. On 4 May he appears to have subscribed a subsequent protest against the clause in the bill imposing an oath on members of both Houses but his signature was later excised (presumably at his own request). HEHL, EL 8415; PA, HL/PO/JO/1/55.

In the summer of 1676 Paget was again one of the triers of a fellow peer, finding Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, not guilty of murder. State Trials, ii. 726. In the following session he took his seat on 26 Feb. 1677, and was present on 70 per cent of all sitting days, being named to 24 committees. In May he was assessed ‘thrice worthy’ by Shaftesbury. He returned to the House one day into the new session on 24 May 1678 and, in spite of failing health, proceeded to attend a little over half of the session. On the day that he returned he was named to the committee considering the act to provide relief for Protestant strangers and three days later to that examining the act for reviving a former act avoiding unnecessary suits and delays for the better settling of intestates’ estates.

Paget sat for the final time on 2 July 1678, a few days before the close of the session. He died later that year on 19 Oct. and was buried in the family vault at West Drayton. He was described by one local commentator in 1663 as having been of ‘no parts that I know of except a good stomach’. Collections for a Hist. of Staffs. ser. 4, ii. 40. The assessment seems to be curmudgeonly. Ironically, in view of his involvement in reviving the act to accelerate the settlement of intestates’ estates, Paget died without making a will; he left a personal estate valued at £5,536 15s. 1d. RO, Paget pprs. D603/K/3/6, R. Acherley to W. Paget, 7th Baron Paget, n.d. He was succeeded by his eldest son, William Paget, as 7th Baron Paget.