BYRON, William (1636-95)

Byron succeeded to the peerage following a difficult period in the immediate aftermath of the Restoration, during which time he found himself heavily in debt (and at one point outlawed by his creditors). Walker, 111. His impecuniousness presumably stemmed from confiscations dating from the Interregnum, as he had become heir to his half-brother’s estate of at least £1,800 prior to the king’s return, which ought to have secured his future. Hutchinson Mems. 320. It was perhaps these financial strictures that led to his settling much of his remaining estate on his future wife, Elizabeth Chaworth, in 1660. Walker, 110. The match allied him with a substantial neighbouring Nottinghamshire family, and with Baptist Noel, 3rd Viscount Campden, Elizabeth Chaworth’s uncle. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, 374. Byron’s sister, Catherine, had previously married Sir William Stanhope^‡, another prominent Nottinghamshire magnate. HP Commons, 1660-90, iii. 473. Despite these connections, Byron does not appear to have wielded any great influence in the county.

During the two decades that passed before his inheritance of the peerage, Byron and his family lived at Bulwell Wood Hall. Between 1660 and 1668 he was involved in a legal wrangle with Dorothy and Mary Balston and with George Weldon. The dispute dated back to 1652 and arose from the purchase of Strelley Park by Nicholas Strelley. The Balstons and Weldon sought recovery from Byron of the profits from the coal mines at Strelley which they claimed amounted to £1,955 11s. 8d. Byron petitioned the House on two occasions to obtain the reversal of a decree in chancery awarded against him. On the second occasion, in April 1668, Richard Sackville, 5th earl of Dorset, presented the petition on Byron’s behalf. The matter was referred to the committee for petitions, but the House refused to agree to the committee’s recommendations that Byron’s petition was fit to be heard at the bar of the House. HMC 8th Rep. 123.

Byron succeeded to the peerage in October 1679, but it was not until April 1680 that he finally took up residence at Newstead Abbey, following the completion of the administration of his predecessor’s estate. Walker, 114. He did not receive a writ of summons to the House for more than a year after his succession. His existence went apparently unnoticed until he was at last recorded as being missing without excuse at a call on 30 Oct. 1680. On 15 Nov. the lord chancellor was ordered to send Byron a writ; he took his seat a fortnight later on 30 November. Even Byron’s first sitting was not minuted by the clerk; it was perhaps overshadowed by the trial of William Howard, Viscount Stafford. On 7 Dec. Byron found Stafford not guilty of treason. He continued to sit until 7 Jan. 1681, having attended approximately 23 per cent of all sitting days in the session. He resumed his seat for the new Parliament at Oxford on 21 Mar., on which day he introduced his kinsman, Edward Noel, later earl of Gainsborough, as Baron Noel. He attended for five of the seven sitting days and was believed likely to be a friend of the embattled Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds). Beinecke, Lib. OSB mss Danby pprs. box 2; HMC 14th Rep. ix. 423.

In December 1682, Lady Byron died, but she was not interred in the family vault at Hucknall until June of the following year. Walker, 115. The reason for the delay may have been on account of Byron’s own indisposition as he also appears to have been prostrated by a severe sickness during that winter, though this did not prevent him from recommending Abel Dureden, formerly chaplain to his father, to William Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury. Bodl. Tanner, 46, f. 50. He may also have had financial troubles as the manor of Newstead was mortgaged at that time. Derbys. RO, Stanhope of Elvaston mss D664M/T175. In 1684 Byron became involved in a legal dispute with the widow of his cousin, George Strelley, and the same year saw him embroiled in a further protracted case inherited from his father involving Sir William Juxon, executor of William Juxon, archbishop of Canterbury, over the advowsons of various rectories and chapels in Lancashire. TNA, C5/360/11; C33/263, ff. 42, 231, 724-5; C33/265, ff. 147, 287, 314, 344.

Byron resumed his activities in the House with the summoning of James II’s first Parliament, attending a quarter of the session from May to July 1685. On 25 June he married again. His second wife was a daughter of the former Member for Abingdon, Sir George Stonhouse, a cousin of John Lovelace, 3rd Baron Lovelace, a sister-in-law of Jacob Astley, 2nd Baron Astley, and widow of a prominent Surrey landowner. VCH Berks. iv. 412; Manning and Bray, History and Antiquities of Surrey, ii. 660. Byron resumed his seat four days after the wedding but attended on only two further days.

In 1687 Byron’s attitude to repeal of the Test was considered to be uncertain. By November he was still undeclared on the issue, and in January of the following year he was listed as absent. Byron’s activities at the time of the Revolution are unknown, but it seems reasonable to speculate that he may have joined his neighbours in rallying to Princess Anne at Nottingham. Walker, 115.

Byron was absent without explanation at a call of the House on 25 Jan. 1689, but he resumed his seat on 28 Jan. after which he attended approximately 35 per cent of all sitting days in the session. On 31 Jan. he voted in favour of inserting the words declaring William and Mary king and queen, and the same day he dissented from the resolution not to agree with the Commons that the throne was vacant. On 4 Feb. he agreed with the Commons use of the word ‘abdicated’ and subscribed the protest when the House rejected the Commons’ vote. Although he voted in the same fashion on the same issue two days later, Theophilus Hastings, 7th earl of Huntingdon, (presumably mistakenly) appended Byron’s name to a list of those protesting against the resolution to agree with the Commons that the throne was vacant. HEHL, HA Parliament, box 4 (28). Byron’s more conspicuous attendance in the House may explain his nomination to several committees during the session. On 19 Apr. he was named to the committee considering the effects of simoniacal promotions, and on 17 May he was added to the sub-committee for the Journal.

Byron maintained his renewed interest in the House in the ensuing (1689-90) session, attending approximately 77 per cent of sitting days. In a list compiled by Carmarthen (as Danby had become) between October 1689 and February 1690 he was classed among the supporters of the court. On 22 Nov. a duel with his cousin, Robert Lucas, 3rd Baron Lucas of Shenfield, was averted by the House’s intervention. The most likely cause of the quarrel was an embarrassing legal tussle then in train between Byron, his heir and other members of the family. Byron claimed that in October 1689 a ‘confederacy’ of his son, daughters, sister and others had attempted to fool him out of his estates, ‘by surprise and circumvention and more particularly by intoxicating your orator with strong and other liquors’ whereby at the sealing of the indenture Byron ‘was deprived of the exercise of his senses or understanding and did not really know what he did.’ Throughout Byron’s petition to the court of exchequer, Lucas’ name was included as one of the confederates, and he was said to have been responsible for luring Byron to the Tower (where Lucas was governor) so that he could be plied with alcohol; on each occasion the name was later scratched out. The case continued until at least July 1690 when Byron was still attempting to secure access to materials relevant to his case. TNA, E219/717; C5/66/3.

Byron resumed his seat for the first 1690 session on 20 Mar., after which he was present on 46 of the 54 sitting days. On 28 Mar. he was one of a number of peers to be given notice concerning protections that had been granted to servants, and on 12 Apr. it was ordered that he (and two other peers) should give a further account about the servants who claimed to be in receipt of their protections. HMC Lords, iii. 12. Financial pressures led him to enter into a £5,000 mortgage with his brother-in-law, Stanhope, in January 1691 and in October he mortgaged Bulwell Park for £1,000. UNL, PI E12/3/1/2; PI E12/3/1/3.

Excused at a call of the House on 2 Nov. 1691, Byron resumed his seat on 9 Nov. and sat for a little under half of the winter session of 1691-2, during which he was named to 25 committees. In May 1692 he entered into a further mortgage agreement with William Lewin for £3,300 secured on the manor of Hucknall Torkard in Nottinghamshire. UNL, PI E12/3/1/4/1-2. The same year Byron’s daughter, Katherine, married Sir Arthur Cole, who represented Inniskillen in the Irish house of commons. Walker, 116; HIP, iii. 451. Byron’s attendance in the House declined after 1692, and he was absent for the trial of Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, in January and February of the following year. Absent again in November 1693 he registered his proxy with his cousin Lucas, with whom relations had presumably been patched up; it was vacated by the close of the session. Byron was excused at a call of the House on 26 Nov. 1694 and once more registered his proxy with Lucas, who held it until the end of the session. Byron attended just 27 of the 127 days of the 1695 session, during which he was named to five committees. Poor health may explain this sudden decline in his activities. He sat for the final time on 2 May 1695. He died on 13 Nov. and was buried in the family vault at Hucknall. The following year, as part of the administration of his personal estate, an inventory of his goods within the province of Canterbury, listed only a set of parliament and coronation robes worth £15. TNA, PROB 5/644. He was succeeded by his son, also William Byron, as 4th Baron Byron. Walker, 116.