NEWPORT, Francis (1620-1708)

Connected to a number of prominent Shropshire families, the Newports were said to have had the best estate in the county. They were also able to exercise an interest in other marcher areas including parts of Cheshire, Staffordshire, Radnorshire and Montgomery. Newport’s kinship network was similarly extensive. A distant cousin of Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford and Mortimer, through his mother Newport was related to the Yorkshire and Staffordshire Leveson Gower family (later Barons and Earls Gower). Pols. in Age of Anne, 265; VCH Salop. iii. 254. By the marriage of his sisters Beatrice and Anne he was uncle to Henry Bromley^‡, great-uncle to William Bromley^‡ and uncle to Richard Corbet^‡. By the marriage of his great aunt, Magdalen, he was also cousin to successive Barons Herbert of Chirbury. Newport’s daughter, Katherine, further reinforced this connection by marrying Henry Herbert, 4th Baron Herbert of Chirbury.

Reflecting their broad base, Newport’s political connections were equally varied. Following the Restoration, his brother, Andrew Newport, sat as a court (later Tory) member in the Commons and had a significant interest in Montgomeryshire, while Newport himself drifted from the Cavalier tendency to the Whigs. His conversion from the court to the Whigs was a slow process. He was never a thoroughgoing member of the group associated with Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury, in the 1670s and he refused to countenance exclusion. James II’s desire to promote catholicism appears to have been the catalyst for Newport’s change of stance and, having refused to countenance the king’s policies, he was dismissed from his offices. Opposition to the king, no doubt reinforced by the disgruntlement of a former courtier, led him to support William of Orange’s invasion and after the Revolution Newport was restored to office and later rewarded with the earldom of Bradford. Such judicious realignment may have contributed to his inclusion in a lampoon against the Whigs (clearly penned before his advancement to the earldom), in which the author queried:

At thee old Newport who can chuse but laugh;

With thy white wig, white gloves and white staff?

Thou art so neat a vermin, we’re I’th’ dark

How to divide the rascal from the spark. Bodl. ms Eng. c. 18, ff. 36-41.

Succession and career to 1668

Returned to the Commons in April 1640, the following year Newport voted against the attainder of Thomas Wentworth^†, earl of Strafford. In 1642 he married Lady Diana Russell, a daughter of the 4th earl of Bedford, an alliance that perhaps demonstrates his political flexibility for unlike his wife’s brother, William Russell, 5th earl (and later duke) of Bedford, Newport sided with the king at the outbreak of hostilities and his growing personal influence was demonstrated with his father’s elevation to the barony of Newport in October 1642. The peerage, purchased for £6,000, also owed something to the mediation of Sir Edward Hyde, later earl of Clarendon. Ejected from the Commons in 1644, that same year Newport was in arms for the king, serving as a captain of horse. In June he was captured near Oswestry and he spent the following three-and-a-half years in prison, during which time he was fined £16,687, though this was later reduced to £9,436 and then to a joint fine of £10,000 shared with his father. Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 37; CCC, 924-6.

Newport succeeded his father in the barony on 8 Feb. 1651. Three years later he was implicated in a royalist plot for which he was committed to the Tower. Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 43. As lord of the manor of Oxenbold in Shropshire, Newport was a neighbour of George Penruddock and in 1655 both he and his brother Andrew were implicated in Penruddock’s rising. Swatland, 12. For the remainder of the interregnum, Newport was periodically imprisoned and when at liberty continued to participate in royalist plots. He participated in a rising with his brother in March 1658 and in 1659 took part in an abortive scheme to take Shrewsbury. CCSP, iv. 20, 509; Trans. Salop. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Soc. 3rd ser. iv. 143.

Newport’s activities at the time of the Restoration are unclear but in January 1660 Barwick wrote to Hyde that he would join with Newport if he was appointed commander in chief for Shropshire. CCSP, iv. 534. Listed by Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, among the peers who had been ‘with the king’, his father’s barony being one of the contentious ‘Oxford’ creations, Newport delayed taking his seat until 1 June 1660 along with a number of other holders of peerages created during the civil war. HMC 5th Rep. 149. On 30 June the House granted him leave to search for missing possessions that had been taken from his house during the recent troubles. The following month Newport was appointed lord lieutenant of Shropshire. According to some sources this constituted a success for Clarendon and according to others for the king. Schoenfeld, Restored House of Lords, 99; Stater, Noble Govt. 74. Certainly, as one of the strategically significant marcher counties, Shropshire was an important lieutenancy and Newport’s appointment to this office serves to emphasize his reputation as a stalwart supporter of the restored regime. Further underlining the strength of his family’s connection in the county, in August Newport recommended his uncle, Sir Richard Leveson, as one of his deputy lieutenants. HMC 5th Rep. 150.

Having taken his seat on the first day of June, Newport was present for almost 46 per cent of all sitting days in the first part of the Convention before the adjournment. During this period he was named to just two committees. Although present on the attendance list that day, he was marked missing without explanation at a call of the House on 31 July. He resumed his seat the following day and on 7 Aug. reported the House’s business to his uncle, Sir Richard Leveson, noting that:

We have no answer yet from the House of Commons concerning our writings by which we passed away the impropriations; some of them say they have them not, and many of the Presbyterians labour hard to have them confirmed to the churches; but I hope we shall prevent them by a Bill first put in for the restoring of them to us… HMC 5th Rep. 207.

On 16 Aug. Newport entered his dissent from the resolution that Warwick Mohun, 3rd Baron Mohun, should have damages for breach of privilege committed when he was proceeded against in 1651. The following day, Newport was forced to appeal to the House again concerning his missing goods, complaining that the former order had been ‘slighted and contemned’, in response to which the House ordered that two of those responsible, Colonel Thomas Hunt and Andrew Lloyd, should be attached as delinquents.

Newport resumed his seat in the second part of the Convention on 19 Nov. 1660 during which he was present for 60 per cent of its sitting days. On 10 Dec. he entered a solitary protest at the House’s resolution to agree with the Commons in granting orders for payment of money due to to the former parliamentarian soldiers Henry Simball, Anthony Buller^‡ and Rowland Laugharne^‡. He was named to just four committees. The same month he submitted a petition to the House complaining of the £10,000 fine that had been imposed upon his father in 1646 and requesting relief. PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/302.

Following the dissolution, Newport brought his influence to bear in Shropshire for the elections to the new Parliament, lending his support to Sir Francis Lawley^‡ and Sir Richard Ottley^‡, possibly following a gentry meeting in the county, while his brother, Andrew, was returned for Montgomeryshire. HMC 5th Rep. 150; HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 362-3. Reports of the expected match between the king and Catharine of Braganza elicited a cynical response from Newport, who mused that as, ‘ ’tis arrived at that the Dutch have taken Goa in the East Indies from the Portuguese, which should have been part of the portion; if the Spaniard take their country from them too, we marry their whole nation and must keep them.’ HMC 5th Rep. 151.

Newport took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 8 May 1661, and was thereafter present for approximately 78 per cent of all sitting days in the first session of 1661-2. Named to the standing committees for privileges and petitions on 11 May, he was named to a further seven committees before the summer adjournment. He was again missing at a call of 20 May, despite having previously been marked present on the attendance list, and as before resumed his seat the following day. In July he supported the petition of Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford, to be admitted as lord great chamberlain, but later the same month, on 20 July, he was granted leave to go into the country. Absent at a call of the House on 25 Nov. on this occasion he does not appear to have attended the House that day but again resumed his seat the next day and thereafter was regular in his attendance for the remainder of the session, during which he was named to a further 15 committees. His addition to the committee for the uniformity bill on 21 Mar. 1662 along with his cousin Edward Herbert*[28], 3rd Baron Herbert of Chirbury, and the king’s cousin Charles Stuart, 3rd duke of Richmond, may have been part of a concerted effort to diminish the Anglican contingent on the committee. In Newport’s case, though, this seems doubtful given his reputation as a great benefactor of the church and by the fact that in August 1662 John Hacket, bishop of Coventry and Lichfield, desired that Newport be included in a commission for putting in order St Mary’s, Coventry and the city’s public school. Swatland, 168; Bodl. Tanner 44, f. 82; Clarendon 77, f. 274.

Newport’s name was missing from the attendance list of 18 Feb. 1663 at the opening of the second session of the Cavalier Parliament but the same day he was named to the committee for privileges. It is possible that this was a clerical error, perhaps a confusion with Mountjoy Blount, earl of Newport, who was present that day but omitted from the committee list. Excused at a call of the House on 23 Feb. Newport was again nominated to a committee despite being absent from the attendance list on 19 Mar., suggesting either a replication of the same error, or that he may have taken his seat late in the day. The reason for his absence from the first two months of the session is unknown but it is plausible that it had some connection with the death of one of his Bromley nephews in a duel at the end of February. Bodl. Carte 143, f. 94. He unquestionably resumed his seat in the House on 12 May, after which he attended until the close of the session, approximately 43 per cent of the whole, during which he was named to a further 10 committees.

Newport appears to have been seeking office in the spring of 1664. A proposal to purchase the post of chamberlain to the queen consort from Philip Stanhope, earl of Chesterfield, for £4,000 was broken off in early April, so it may have been at this time that he secured the comptrollership in the duke of York’s household. Bodl. Carte 33, f. 379. Newport took his seat in the third session of the Cavalier Parliament on 21 Mar. 1664 after which he attended on almost 78 per cent of all sitting days. Named to the standing committees for privileges and petitions on 21 and 23 Mar., on 2 Apr. he was named to the committee for the bill for transporting felons and to two further committees later that month. He returned to the House for the following session on 24 Nov. again proving a regular attender (present for approximately 72 per cent of all sitting days) but on 7 Dec. he was noted as being missing without explanation at a call of the House. He resumed his seat two days later, after which he was named to 11 committees. He failed to attend the brief fifth session of October 1665 held in Oxford but returned to the House at the opening of the ensuing session on 18 Sept. 1666. Again assiduous in his attendance, he sat on approximately 88 per cent of all sitting days and was named to fourteen committees. On 21 and 23 Jan. 1667 he chaired sessions of the committee concerning the bill for ‘redress of inconveniences’ caused by the lack of proof of the death of people overseas, reporting the committee’s findings to the House on 24 January. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, pp. 161, 164.

Household official, 1668-85

Newport’s attendance declined during the following session, which commenced on 10 Oct. 1667. Having taken his seat on 16 Oct. he was thereafter present for approximately 55 per cent of all sitting days during which he was named to 18 committees, in addition to the standing committee for petitions. Excused at a call of the House on 17 Feb. 1668 and then again three days later, he resumed his seat once more on 26 Mar. and then sat until the adjournment of 9 May, after which he did not attend any of the subsequent sittings before the prorogation of 1 Mar. 1669. In June 1668 it was reported that he was shortly to be promoted comptroller of the household and on the 14th of that month the appointment, which brought with it a salary of £1,200 as well as significant interest as a broker between court and Parliament, was confirmed. Add. 36916, f. 104; Verney ms mic. M636/22, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 17 June 1668. At about the same time he was sworn to the Privy Council. Shortly before, in March, his brother Andrew Newport had been appointed to the lesser post of comptroller of the great wardrobe.

Newport returned to the House for the subsequent session on 19 Oct. 1669. The following day he was named to his only select committee for that session, on the bill to prevent frauds in exporting wool. Although present on 32 of the 36 sitting days, he was absent at a call held on 26 Oct. but was back in his seat the following day. On 4 Nov. he was one of the House’s officers appointed to attend the king about the address of thanks for putting into execution the laws against nonconformists. He took his seat at the opening of the ensuing session on 14 Feb. 1670 and once more proved to be an assiduous attender, being present on almost 92 per cent of all sitting days, during which he was named to more than 50 committees. Before the summer adjournment he was entrusted, on 19 Feb. 1670, with the proxy of his nephew, Robert Greville, 4th Baron Brooke, which was vacated when Brooke resumed his seat on 31 October. On 24 Mar. Newport made a special motion to the House on behalf of one Thomas Price, who was in the custody of the sergeant at arms for breach of privilege having arrested one of Newport’s servants, and on 8 Apr. he entered his protest against the passing of the bill setting an imposition on brandy. Newport resumed his seat after the adjournment on 24 Oct. 1670. He was excused at a call of the House on 14 Nov. but resumed his seat the following day. On 26 Jan. 1671 he was nominated one of the reporters of a conference held that day concerning the bill to prevent malicious maiming and wounding and he repeated that role for the ensuing four conferences held between 4 and 11 February. Newport entered his dissent from the resolution not to commit the bill concerning privilege of Parliament on 9 Mar. and six days later further registered his protest at the resolution to suspend the judgment against Cusack in the cause Cusack v. Usher. On 15 Apr. he chaired a session of the committee considering the tobacco bill, reporting back to the House three days later. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/2, p. 453. On 17 Apr. he was added to the reporters of a conference with the Commons on the bill for impositions on foreign commodities. Bodl. Clarendon 87, f. 86.

In January 1672 it was rumoured that there were to be a number of new appointments made, among them Newport as treasurer of the household. Verney ms mic. M636/24, Sir R. Verney to E. Verney, 18 Jan. 1672. In the event it was not until November that he relinquished the comptrollership to William Maynard, 2nd Baron Maynard, and was appointed treasurer of the household in succession to Thomas Clifford, Baron Clifford. CSP Dom. 1672-3, p. 219. According to the secretary to the Venetian embassy, all were ‘generously rewarded by the king for their merits and distinguished qualities, which render them conspicuous at the court.’ CSP Ven. 1671-2, p. 324. He took his seat in the 10th session of the Cavalier Parliament on 4 Feb. 1673 and was present for 38 of its 41 days. Named to 14 committees, on 20 Feb. he reported from the committee for Wolrich’s bill and on 24 Mar. he was appointed one of the reporters of a conference to be held with the Commons on the bill against Popish recusants. Present on all of the four days of the brief session of October 1673, on 30 Oct. Newport was named to the committee considering the bill for encouraging English manufactures. He proved unwilling to exert his interest on behalf of his kinsman, Henry Herbert of Ribbesford, later Baron Herbert of Chirbury, at the by-election for Bewdley in November triggered by the death of Herbert’s father, Sir Henry Herbert^‡, apparently regarding Herbert’s candidature as a hopeless cause. Newport appeared to be proved right when Thomas Foley^‡ was elected but, following a short delay, Herbert successfully unseated his rival on petition. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 463. Newport took his seat on 7 Jan. 1674, and was again present on every day of the session during which he was named to five committees.

Newport had allied himself with Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington, during the early 1670s but by the beginning of 1675 he was drifting towards Shaftesbury’s opposition grouping. Support for the opposition led to Newport being forbidden the king’s presence but he was listed by York as one of the ‘confederate peers’ whose quiescence he hoped to purchase by offering protection for Protestant non-conformists in return for an undertaking not to question his right to the succession. Swatland, 217-18; Haley, Shaftesbury, 368. It was perhaps as part of this effort to secure Newport’s support that on 11 Mar. 1675 he was advanced in the peerage as a viscount. Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. to E. Verney, 11 Mar. 1675. It is not clear to whom Newport owed his promotion. Charles Sackville, later 6th earl of Dorset, had been created earl of Middlesex the previous month as an acknowledgement of his succession to the estates of his uncle, Lionel Cranfield, 3rd earl of Middlesex, and in the course of the summer the king honoured a number of his illegitimate children, but there were no other promotions in the peerage at that time. It seems likely that the promotion was intended as an attempt to detach Newport from the opposition. Introduced in his new dignity at the opening of the new session on 13 Apr. 1675, Newport again proved a remarkably assiduous member of the House, attending 38 of the 42 sitting days. Despite this, he was absent on 14 Apr. and thus was not named to the standing committees and he was named to just five other committees. Once more given Brooke’s proxy on 27 Apr., which was vacated by the prorogation, on 6 May he registered his protest over the decision to reassure the Commons that the Lords would consider their privileges in the cause of Sherley v. Fagg. Newport took his seat for the ensuing session on 13 October. He was once more present on every day, and on 23 Oct. was again given Brooke’s proxy, which was vacated by the prorogation. His viscountcy did not prevent Newport from continuing to associate with the opposition on occasion. On 20 Nov. he voted in favour of presenting an address to the king requesting a dissolution of Parliament and entered his protest when the address was rejected. However he stopped short of consistent support for Shaftesbury and his followers.

One of the peers appointed to the commission to try Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, in June 1676, Newport joined the majority in finding him not guilty of murder. Beinecke Lib. OSB Mss fb 155, pp. 460-1; State Trials, vii. 157-8. He then took his seat after the 15-month prorogation on 15 Feb. 1677, the first day of the new session, following which his attendance in the House remained remarkably assiduous, attending 112 of 117 sitting days. His high rate of attendance was similarly reflected in committee nominations: he was named to more than 40 during the course of the session. He was also able to lend his interest to his nephew Sir Richard Corbet at the by-election for Shrewsbury. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 367. On 12 Mar. 1677 he reported from the committee for the bill to prevent an increase of new buildings in London and four days later he reported from the same committee again. He reported on 12 Apr. from the committee considering the bill for the better observation of the sabbath and the following day was named one of the reporters of the conference with the Commons over the supply bill. Despite Newport’s previous association with the opposition, Shaftesbury marked him ‘vile’ in the spring of 1677, presumably reflecting his continuing willingness to co-operate with the court. Following the long adjournment from 28 May 1677, Newport attended two of the subsequent days of adjournment and on 19 Jan. he received the proxy of his kinsman Fulke Greville, 5th Baron Brooke, which he held for the remainder of the session which finally convened for business again on 28 Jan. 1678. On 4 Apr. 1678 Newport voted Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, guilty of manslaughter.

Newport’s attendance in the ensuing session of May 1678 proved similarly diligent—some 93 per cent of all sitting days—and he was again nominated to a significant number of select committees, 14 in the course of the session. He returned to the House for the following session on 21 Oct. 1678, during which he attended on 92 per cent of all sitting days. As an indication of the frenetic pace of the session, on 26 Oct. Daniel de la Place reported to Newport’s kinsman, Henry Herbert of Ribbesford, that he had waited at the door of the Lords all day the previous day but had been unable to prevail on Newport to speak with him or take a letter away for his perusal. Epistolary Curiosities, ed. R. Warner, i. 106. On 15 Nov. Newport voted against the motion for a clause in the test bill which would place the declaration against transubstantiation under the same penalty as the required oaths. On 12 Dec. in his role as treasurer of the household, he communicated the king’s response to three addresses against the number of Catholics in the capital presented to him by the House and that same day he was named to the committee for the bill preventing the children of popish recusants from being sent overseas for their education. On 26 Dec. he informed the House of information he had received concerning one Valentine Harcourt (identified by the informer William Bedloe as a Catholic priest, William Harcourt) who had been taken in his lieutenancy at Shrewsbury, upon which the House ordered that Harcourt be brought to London to answer at the bar. The same day he voted in favour of insisting on the Lords’ amendment to the supply bill and on 27 Dec. he voted against committing Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later successively marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds).

Newport’s son, Richard Newport, later 2nd earl of Bradford, and his kinsman, Sir Vincent Corbet^‡, were returned unopposed for Shropshire at the election of February 1679. Unlike Newport himself, both were marked ‘honest’ and ‘worthy’ by Shaftesbury. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 363. Newport was present for the six sittings of the first session of the new Parliament which began on 6 Mar. and then took his seat at the opening of the longer-lasting session on 15 March. He was once again characteristically assiduous in his attendance, being present on 98 per cent - all bar one - of all sitting days. Danby altered his opinion of him in the days before the Parliament, noting him at first as a likely supporter to be spoken to by the king but subsequently as a probable opponent. Danby’s reassessment proved to be prescient and, despite formerly voting against Danby’s commitment, Newport voted in favour of the Commons’ bill to attaint the former lord treasurer during a series of divisions in the first half of April. The same month he employed his interest to have William Charlton^‡ put out as town clerk of Ludlow but Newport was himself omitted from the reconstituted Privy Council on 21 April. HMC Var. ii. 394. Despite this slight Newport retained his household office and in that capacity he reported to the House on 3 Apr. that the king had acquiesced in the request for a payment of £100 to be made to Titus Oates. The same day he reported the case of one Luke Hemyngs, attached for arresting one of the servants of John Wilmot, 2nd earl of Rochester, who had made his submission and had therefore been released. On 8 May he registered his dissent when the House voted against the Commons’ request to appoint a joint committee of both Houses to consider the trials of the impeached lords and two days later he again voted in favour of this proposal and dissented from its renewed rejection. On 27 May he entered his dissent at the resolution to insist upon the vote confirming the right of the bishops to stay in court during capital cases.

Richard Newport and Corbet were returned again for Shropshire in August 1679 but affairs in the county were far from peaceful with Newport continuing to pursue his vendetta against Charlton at Ludlow. In association with Somerset Fox^‡ he lent his support to Edward Smalman as an alternative town clerk causing Charlton’s father, Sir Job Charlton^‡, to complain to Sir Leoline Jenkins^‡ in August 1680 about Newport’s behaviour. CSP Dom. 1679-80, pp. 514, 602-3. The following year Charlton was successful in having his son reinstated.

Newport took his seat once more at the opening of the second Exclusion Parliament on 21 Oct. 1680. Present on approximately 85 per cent of all sitting days, his activities in the session represent well the careful balancing act he maintained as both courtier and occasional supporter of the opposition. On 24 Oct. he carried a message to the king from the Lords requesting a proclamation to be made offering a pardon to anyone willing to give information about the plot or to submit within two months. Verney ms mic. M636/27, newsletter, 24 Oct. 1680. The following month, on 15 Nov. he voted in favour of rejecting the exclusion bill at first reading but a week later voted in favour of appointing a committee to consider the state of the nation in conjunction with the Commons. On 7 Dec. he found William Howard, Viscount Stafford, guilty of treason and on 7 Jan. 1681 he was reported to have been one of those to enter their dissent at the resolution not to put the question whether Sir William Scroggs should be committed upon articles of impeachment, though his name does not appear on the printed lists in the Lords Journal. Beinecke Lib. OSB Mss 1, series II, box 4, folder 173; Carte 81, ff. 656-57.

Richard Newport was again elected for Shropshire in March 1681 but the death of his former partner meant that he was paired with another kinsman, William Leveson Gower^‡. In advance of the meeting of the new Parliament, Newport was again listed as a probable opponent of Danby but he attended just one day, 23 Mar. 1681, of the brief session at Oxford. His poor attendance may suggest foreknowledge that the Parliament was likely to be curtailed but could equally have been on account of the imminent marriage of his heir to Mary Wilbraham. Despite opposing exclusion, Newport’s activities gave rise to speculation that he was to be put out of his household office that summer. HMC Ormonde, vi. 98. A letter from John Ellis in July declared that ‘the king is resolved thoroughly to purge his family from disaffected persons’, but Newport maintained sufficient credit over the following years to be able to maintain his position and even to undertake to do what he could on behalf of his son-in-law Herbert of Chirbury in assuring the king of the latter’s ignorance of the Rye House Plot. TNA, PRO 30/53/8/3. Newport’s authority in Shropshire appears to have come under increasing pressure and in the fevered atmosphere of the last two years of the king’s life Newport was increasingly embroiled in county rivalries. In March 1683 he was in conflict with Sir Francis Lawley over the management of the militia and in July complaints were voiced of Newport’s ‘slackness’. CSP Dom. 1683 (Jan. to June), p. 143; CSP Dom. 1683 (June to Sept.), p. 61.

The reign of James II, the Revolution and the Convention, 1685-90

Although after the death of Charles II Newport was continued in post as treasurer of the household, the accession of the new king signalled a diminution of his influence in Shropshire. Evelyn Diary, iv. 416-7. In April 1685 following a gentry meeting two newcomers, Edward Kynaston^‡ and John Walcot^‡ were returned in the place of Richard Newport, who was requested not to stand, and William Leveson Gower, who stood in his home county of Staffordshire instead. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 363. Newport took his seat in the new Parliament on 19 May 1685, after which he was present on approximately 72 per cent of all sitting days, and during which he was named to 13 committees. On 22 May he made what John Evelyn thought ‘an impertinent exception’ against ‘two or three’ peers who had supposedly taken their seats while still underage. The same day the House issued a standing order barring peers from attending under the age of 21. Evelyn Diary, iv. 442-5. After the revolt of James Scott, duke of Monmouth, Newport resumed his seat on 9 Nov. and attended eight days of the brief session of that month. He was noted as absent without explanation at a call of the House on 16 Nov. but resumed his seat the very next day.

Newport was one of those appointed to try Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer (later earl of Warrington) in the court of the lord high steward in January 1686. Bodl. Carte 81, f. 773. In September he entertained the queen and Princess Anne to dinner at his retreat at Twickenham. Add. 61414, f. 53. Two months later, a report suggested that Newport, along with Maynard and John Sheffield, 3rd earl of Mulgrave (later duke of Buckingham) had been observed to kneel at the elevation of the host during the All Souls’ day eucharist, which if true might suggest that the three courtiers felt obliged to adapt to the new king’s more ritualistic tastes. Verney ms mic. M636/41, C. Gardiner to Sir R. Verney, 3 Nov. 1686. There is no indication that Newport felt any inclination towards catholicism. In any case Newport’s malleability availed him nothing and in January 1687 he was noted as an opponent of the repeal of the Test. Speculation that month that he would be removed from office was confirmed in early February when he was replaced as treasurer of the household by William Paston, 2nd earl of Yarmouth. Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42, ff. 95, 111; CSP Dom. 1686-7, pp. 364-65; Add. 34510, f. 14. Again listed in May as an opponent of the king’s policies, Newport remained in London when the King embarked on a progress through that county in August. Although he sent instructions that ‘the county should show their duty’ to the king and that ‘the whole militia be drawn forth at his entrance into the county with as many of the gentlemen as can be got together’, he excused himself from attendance in a letter of 6 Aug. explaining that, ‘If I were able I would come down my self, but I am troubled with a pain in my limbs and back that I cannot undertake such a journey a present.’ Trans. Salop. Arch. and Nat. Hist. Soc. 3rd ser. iv. 182. Such excuses were unavailing, and only five days after this letter was written, Newport was put out of his lieutenancy and replaced by George Jeffreys, Baron Jeffreys. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 413; Bodl. Clarendon 89, f. 108. Newport was again noted as an opponent of repeal of the Test both in November 1687 and January 1688. That same month he was also assessed to be one of the king’s opponents in the Lords. In June 1688, during the crisis over the trial of the seven bishops, Henry Compton, bishop of London, suggested Newport as a possible surety for John Lake, bishop of Chichester. Bodl. Tanner, 28, f. 76. On 16 Nov. Newport was one of those to subscribe the petition for a free Parliament.

Dismissal from office appears to have affected Newport profoundly and at the time of the Revolution he was one of the most vocal in calling for the king’s removal. Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, described Newport as ‘the most violent and waspish of all.’ Ailesbury Mems. i. 198. Active in the meetings of the lords following the king’s flight, on 11 Dec. Newport was noted as being one of those responsible for forcing the omission of a clause affirming King James’s right to the throne in the draft declaration composed by Francis Turner, bishop of Ely. Horwitz, Parl. Pol. 6. The same day he proposed that the lieutenant of the Tower, Bevill Skelton, should be sent for. After some delay Skelton appeared and Ailesbury suggested he should not be brought before the House ‘so that he might fall gently’, but Newport insisted, declaring, ‘No, I will see his face, and how he behaves himself in adversity, and for to humble him that was so proud in prosperity.’ Newport took a less abrasive line during the discussions of 22 Dec. in the House of Lords concerning the removal of papists from London, reminding the House of exceptions for certain tradesmen as well as those in the households of foreign ambassadors. Kingdom without a King, 39, 67, 74, 85, 92, 98, 105, 109, 115, 154.

Newport took his seat at the opening of the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689, after which he was present on 75 per cent of all sitting days and named to more than 40 committees. On 27 Jan. he reported to the House that Roger Palmer, earl of Castlemaine [I], was in Shropshire, ‘and so setting forth how dangerous a man he was… he moved he might be brought up in custody’, which was ordered accordingly. On 31 Jan. Newport voted in favour of inserting in the Commons’ vote the words declaring the prince and princess of Orange king and queen. Newport’s implacable opposition to the former king became even more apparent on 4 Feb. when in response to discussion as to whether the House should read King James’s letter to Sir Richard Grahme^‡, Viscount Preston [S], he responded that ‘he hoped the House would not read any private man’s letter: and he looked on this as the letter of a private man; for he was no more king.’ Clarendon Corresp. ii. 259. That same day he was nominated one of the managers of the conference concerning the wording of the motion on King James, and he voted in favour of agreeing with the Commons in their use of the words ‘abdicated’ and ‘the throne is vacant’, although he did not sign the dissent when those were rejected. On 6 Feb. he again supported the Commons’ wording in the division which saw the motion accepted. Newport was appointed a manager for the three conferences between 8 and 12 Feb. which discussed the arrangements of the proclamation of the prince and princess of Orange as king and queen.

Within a week after William and Mary had accepted the crown on 14 Feb. 1689, Newport was restored both to the treasurership of the household and to the Privy Council and in March a warrant was passed for his restoration to the lieutenancy of Shropshire. Bodl. Carte 79, f. 743; Sainty and Bucholz, Royal Household, ii. 2; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss file N, folder 10812; NAS, GD 157/2681/40; Bodl. Carte 79, f. 743; CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 21; Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 513. His name was also one of those put forward by Sir George Treby^‡ in his report on the future government of Wales, Treby recommending that Wales be divided between two lieutenants and suggesting Newport as one of three candidates to control the northern lieutenancy. CSP Dom. 1689-90, p. 384. Named one of the reporters of the conference concerning the address to assist the king on 5 Mar., the following day Newport reported to the House the king’s decision to receive both Houses at Whitehall on 8 March. He was named to the committee for the bill for naturalizing Prince George of Denmark, duke of Cumberland, on 3 Apr. and the following day reported the committee’s findings to the House. The committee recommended that one clause relating to the addition of two bars to the prince’s robes be omitted but the rest of the bill was accepted without amendment and it was ordered to be engrossed, receiving the royal assent a few days later. With Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, Newport introduced Richard Lumley, Viscount Lumley, on 13 April. A week later he was named a conference manager for a conference on the bill for abrogating the oaths of allegiance, and he continued in this role for two further conferences both held on 22 April. That same day he reported from the committee for the bill for repealing the hearth tax.

Newport was the recipient of further promotion at the beginning of May 1689 when he was appointed cofferer of the household as part of an arrangement with his son-in-law, Herbert of Chirbury. The decision to combine both offices under one head was later criticized severely. Sainty and Bucholz, ii. 3; Add. 70314, Sir S. Fox to Queen Anne, 14 Aug. 1710. On 24 May in the Convention he reported from the committee of the whole House considering the bill concerning the rights of the subject and succession to the crown the committee’s opinion that the clause concerning non obstantes should be left out. That same day he was nominated one of the peers to draw up reasons why the House could not agree with the Commons in leaving out the Lords’ amendment to the additional poll bill and he acted as one of the managers for the first conference on this matter on 27 May and then again for two subsequent conferences on this continuing disagreement on 31 May. On that same day he voted in favour of reversing the two judgments of perjury against Titus Oates and then signed the long protest when that motion was defeated. He was appointed a reporter of the two conferences on 20 and 21 June on the amendments to the bill for commissioners of the Great Seal. Newport returned to the matter of the reversal of the judgments against Oates after the bill to that purpose was brought up from the Commons. He presided over a committee of the whole on 9 July which compiled a number of amendments to the bill. Three days later the amendments were approved by the House: Newport registered his protest against them, and then acted as one of the tellers on the question whether the amended bill should pass: the division was carried in the affirmative by 33 to 22. HMC Lords, ii. 259, 261. He was appointed a manager for a conference on the disagreement between the Houses on these amendments on 26 July and on 30 July subscribed the protest at the House’s resolution to adhere to them. HMC Lords, ii. 207. That same month of July he proposed a proviso to the committee for the militia bill, which was rejected by eight votes to four.

Newport took his seat one day into the second session of the Convention, on 24 October. He was present on more than 80 per cent of all sitting days, and was named to 14 committees. He made an initial report from the committee appointed to examine persons concerning the attempt to suborn witnesses against Delamer, William Cavendish, 4th earl (later duke) of Devonshire, Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford, and Charles Gerard, earl of Macclesfield, on 11 Dec. and on 2 Jan. 1690 he reported again, this time giving a full account of the committee’s proceedings. He presided over the committees of the whole which met on 13 and 14 Dec. 1689 to consider the land tax bill. Carmarthen (as the earl of Danby had become) classed him as an opponent of the court on a list compiled between October 1689 and February 1690, adding the phrase ‘to invite him’.

The Parliament of 1690

In the elections for Shropshire of March 1690 Richard Newport and Edward Kynaston were returned once more without contest. Newport took his seat in the House for the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690, following which he was again studious in his attendance, sitting on 94 per cent of all sitting days. On 25 Mar. he spoke in the debate concerning the bill of indemnity on behalf of Sir Roger L’Estrange^‡ and Sir Nathaniel Butler. Verney ms mic. M636/44, A. Nicholas to J. Verney, 25 Mar. 1690. He subscribed to the protest of 5 Apr. against the rejection of the amendments to the bill for recognizing William and Mary king and queen. Four days later he reported from the committee for Sir Hugh Middleton’s bill. A rumour at the close of April that Newport would resign his newly regained office proved to be unfounded. Verney ms mic. M636/44, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 30 Apr. 1690, W. Denton to Sir R. Verney, 6 May 1690. On 13 May he was one of the managers of the conference concerning the exercise of government by the queen in the king’s absence. That same day he subscribed the protest against the decision not to allow counsel more time in presenting their case for the bill for restoring the City of London’s charter. On 7 July he was one of the commissioners appointed to prorogue the Parliament which had been adjourned since 23 May. CSP Dom. 1690-91, p. 49.

Newport’s attendance remained high in the ensuing session, when he was present on approximately 88 per cent of all sitting days and was named to 32 committees. On 6 Oct. 1690 he acted as one of the tellers on the question whether Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough and James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, should be discharged from imprisonment, which motion was rejected. He reported on 24 Nov. from the committee of the whole House that the bill for doubling the duty of excise on beer was fit to pass without amendment. HMC Lords, iii. 92. On 18 Dec. he further reported from the committee of the whole with the bill for granting duties on East India goods to the king and queen fit to pass without amendment. The same month he proposed an amendment to be added to Ailesbury’s bill to reclaim arrears on the marriage portion due him, which was adopted accordingly. He was appointed one of the managers for a series of four conferences held on 5 Jan. 1691 concerning the bill for suspending the navigation and corn acts during the war.

Newport played host to the queen on 17 Mar. 1691. Add. 70015, f. 24. Two months later it was reported that he was to pay £1,200 to Maynard to retain both his household places. Add. 70270, R. Harley to his wife, 2 May 1691. Towards the close of the summer he appears to have provoked tensions in Shropshire by insisting on members of the militia purchasing uniforms costing £30 a piece. Add. 70234, Sir E. to R. Harley, 19 Sept. 1691. He returned to the House at the opening of the third session of the 1690 Parliament on 22 Oct. 1691, after which he attended on approximately 68 per cent of all sitting days and was named to 39 committees. On 15 Dec. he brought in the traitorous correspondence bill and on 21 Dec. he chaired the committee of the whole for the bill against adhering to the king and queen’s enemies. HMC Lords, iii. 447; Glasgow UL, ms Hunter 73 (T.3.11), lxix. Newport chaired further sessions of this committee of the whole on 30 Dec. and 13 Jan. 1692. HMC Lords, iii. 448. Towards the end of the year he was noted by William George Richard Stanley, 9th earl of Derby, as one of those likely to support his continuing efforts to recover family lands lost during the 1650s and on 12 Jan. 1692 he subscribed the protest against receiving the divorce bill of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk. Lancs. RO, DDK 1615/9. On 16 Feb. 1692 he donated his proxy to Sidney Godolphin, Baron (later earl of) Godolphin, which was vacated by Newport’s return to the House on 18 February.

Newport took his seat at the opening of the next session on 4 Nov. 1692. He maintained his typically high rate of attendance, sitting on approximately 82 per cent of all sitting days in the session, during which he was named to 35 committees. This all in spite of the news of the loss of his second son, Francis (Frank) Newport, in late November. Verney ms mic. M636/46, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 23 Nov. 1692; Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 622. Newport was one of several privy councillors to support the embattled John Churchill, earl (later duke) of Marlborough, and he was able to avoid signing the warrant for his arrest. Horwitz, Parl.Pol. 105; HMC Lords, iii. 91. On 31 Dec. he voted against committing the place bill and on 3 Jan. 1693 he voted against its passage. He was also listed by Ailesbury as a probable opponent of the Norfolk divorce bill, which was under consideration at that same time. On 31 Jan. Newport was one of four peers fined £100 for leaving the House after hearing the evidence against Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, but before the House had been formerly adjourned. HMC Lords, iv. 295; Add. 70081, newsletter, 4 Feb. 1693. He resumed his seat the following day and on 4 Feb. found Mohun not guilty of murder. After the verdict he and the other offending lords were discharged from their fines.

Newport caused some local disquiet during the summer of 1693 by putting out the Tory Sir Edward Acton,^‡ bt. as a deputy lieutenant in Shropshire. Add. 70235, Sir E. Harley to R. Harley, 28 July 1693. Acton had drifted from support for the court, which presumably explains Newport’s actions. The Viscount returned to the House for the following session on 7 Nov. 1693 and maintained his high level of attendance. Present on 84 per cent of all sitting days, he was named to 23 committees in the course of the session. On 23 Nov. he subscribed the protest against the resolution that the House would no longer consider petitions for protection from the king’s servants. He later reported from the committee considering Thomas Edwards’ bill on 5 Feb. 1694. On 16 Apr. Newport was appointed one of the managers of a conference with the Commons concerning amendments to the bill for the easier recovery of small tithes.

As a reward for his continued support for the new regime, on 11 May 1694 Newport was advanced in the peerage as earl of Bradford (not, as one rumour suggested, earl of Newport). He was one of eight peers promoted at this time. CSP Dom. 1694-95, p. 121; TNA, SP 105/60, f. 138; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 304. In August he again played host to the queen at Twickenham. Bodl. Carte 79, f. 586. He took his seat in his new dignity at the beginning of the following session on 12 Nov., introduced between Stamford and John Egerton, 3rd earl of Bridgwater, after which he attended on approximately 66 per cent of all sitting days. Named to 12 committees, on 13 Apr. 1695 he was appointed one of the reporters of the conference concerning Sir Thomas Cooke’s^‡ information and on 2 May he was again named a manager for the conference considering amendments to the bill for the imprisonment of Cooke as well as others reputed to have received money from him out of the funds of the East India Company. HP Commons, 1690-1715, iii. 702-3. Later that month he recommended Sir Littleton Powis as a successor to the recently deceased Judge Eyre. Although another candidate took Eyre’s place as a judge in king’s bench, Powis appears to have been successful in securing another judicial appointment. Surr. Hist. Cent. 371/14/L9; CSP Dom. 1695, p. 348.

The Parliaments of 1695 and 1698

The dissolution found Bradford again exercising his interest effectively in Shropshire. Richard Newport (now styled Lord Newport) was again returned for the county, while his younger brother, Thomas Newport^‡, was elected at Ludlow where Bradford held the office of keeper of the castle, though Robert Harley believed the appointment was merely a temporary measure intended ‘to countenance his son’s election for the town.’ HP Commons, 1690-1715, ii. 503. Bradford took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 22 Nov. 1695. Present for approximately 74 per cent of all sitting days in the session, he was named to 20 committees and on 23 Dec. he was one of those to contribute to the deliberations of the committee of the whole concerning the trial for treason bill, proposing that the bill not take effect until 1699. HMC Hastings, iv. 318. On 10 Jan. 1696 he reported from the committee appointed to draw reasons to be offered at a conference with the Commons on the bill for regulating the silver coinage and he was appointed a manager for a subsequent conference the following day. He subscribed the protest of 17 Jan. at the resolution to hear the petition of Sir Richard Verney, later 11th Baron Willoughby de Broke, for a writ of summons, and he protested again on 13 Feb. when the House granted Verney’s request. HEHL, HM 30659 (55). On 24 Feb., after the king provided information on the assassination plot against him, Bradford was placed on the committee to draw an address and as such was named a manger for the two conferences that day at which the wording of the address hammered out. The following day he reported to the House the king’s positive response to that part of the address requesting a day of thanksgiving. Bradford, not unexpectedly, signed the Association at the first opportunity, on 27 Feb., and later that same month presented the loyal association of the town of Shrewsbury. Owen and Blakeway, Hist. of Shrewsbury (1825), i. 500. On 25 Apr, shortly before the close of the session, he was appointed one of the reporters of a conference with the Commons considering the Greenland trade bill.

Bradford appears to have been active in lieutenancy business over the summer of 1696. A letter to Sir Henry Goodricke^‡ conveyed via the medium of John Ellis may well have contained the names of those within his county who had refused to take the Association. Add. 72486, ff. 44-5. Bradford took his seat at the opening of the second session on 20 Oct. 1696. Although Bradford was again regular in his attendance, sitting for approximately 65 per cent of the session, he appears to have been suffering from poor health and was named to only 12 committees. He left the House for a few days on 27 Nov. and registered his proxy with Devonshire three days later, but this was quickly vacated by Bradford’s return to the House the following day, 1 December. He consequently left the House again for a longer period from 3 Dec. and was excused at a call on 8 Dec. on the grounds of sickness, and it may be that his proxy with Devonshire was in force during this period. On 9 Dec., in Bradford’s absence, the House was informed of a breach of his parliamentary privilege. PA, HL/PO/JO/10/1/487/1086. Having resumed his seat on 14 Dec., the following day, in the midst of debate on the use of the testimony of Cardell Goodman in the attainder of Sir John Fenwick^‡, 3rd bt, Bradford and four other peers were granted leave to withdraw, being indisposed. There is no suggestion that Bradford’s sickness was in any way ‘political’. Indeed he resumed his seat the very next day, 16 Dec., and on 23 Dec. he voted in favour of the bill for Fenwick’s attainder. A month later, on 22 Jan. 1697 he was named to the committee for preparing an address requesting that Fenwick be reprieved for a week. On 18 Feb. with Richard Savage, 4th Earl Rivers, Bradford introduced Arnold Joost van Keppel, as earl of Albemarle and on 5 Mar. he was appointed one of the managers of a conference concerning the bill to prohibit the import of East Indian silks. He was again absent for a time from 13 Mar. and on the 18th entrusted his proxy with Marlborough, which was vacated on 22 March. On 15 Apr., the penultimate day of the session, Bradford registered his protest at the resolution not to include an amendment in the bill for restraining stock-jobbers.

Bradford appears to have continued to suffer from poor health into the summer of 1697. On 19 June Francis Gwyn commented to William Savile, 2nd marquess of Halifax, ‘I am sorry for my Lord Bradford, or anyone in his condition, but I doubt it has quite spoiled his suavitatem meram [sweetness of temper], which is the ground of his earldom.’ Add. 75370, F. Gwyn to Halifax, 19 June 1697. He rallied sufficiently to take his seat at the commencement of the following session on 3 Dec. 1697 after which he was present for 79 per cent of all sitting days. Named to 36 committees in the course of the session, on 10 Jan. 1698 he was named one of the managers of the conference concerning the Lords’ amendments to the bill forbidding all correspondence with the former king. Bradford entered his protest at the resolution to grant relief to James Bertie^‡ and his wife in the case Bertie v. Viscount Falkland on 16 Mar. and the following day he entered a further dissent when it was resolved to allow Bertie, as relief, to enjoy the income of the estate in dispute for the duration of Mrs Bertie’s life. On 10 May he was appointed manager of the conference, held the following day, for the Colchester workhouses bill. Two weeks later he was also appointed a manager of the conference, likewise held the following day, considering amendments to the bill for the suppression of blasphemy. Closely involved with the House’s business over the impeachment of John Goudet and other merchants, Bradford was a manager of four conferences on the matter on 15, 21 and 28 June and on 2 July. HMC Lords, n.s. iii. 230. On 4 July he was named to the committee appointed to examine the journals concerning proceedings over the impeachment of Strafford.

Bradford’s heir, Newport, declined to stand for election for Shropshire in July 1698 but Bradford presumably supported the candidacy of Sir Edward Leighton^‡, bt. the defeated Whig candidate from the previous contest who was returned with Kynaston. Elsewhere, Thomas Newport was beaten into third place at Ludlow, though he was later returned on petition. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 488. The 1698 election may have shown the ageing Bradford’s faltering interest in the county in the final decade of his life but he remained active in the House’s business, taking his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Dec. 1698 after which he attended almost 83 per cent of all sitting days in the first session. Named to the committee for privileges on 9 Dec., Bradford was appointed to a further 19 committees in the session. On 1 Mar. 1699 he was nominated one of the managers of the conference to be held the following day concerning amendments to the bill preventing the distilling of corn and on 21 Apr. he was a manager of a conference concerning the market at Billingsgate. The same day he reported the king’s answer to the Lords’ address. On 24 Aug. he was appointed one of the commissioners for proroguing Parliament. HMC Lords, n.s. iii. 353; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 552. The death of Bradford’s brother, Andrew Newport, the following month benefited Bradford’s younger son, Thomas Newport, to the tune of at least £40,000 and no doubt assisted him in securing an influential match with the daughter of Sir Orlando Bridgeman^‡ the following year. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 562.

Bradford returned to the House for the second session on 16 Nov. 1699. Although in attendance for slightly fewer days than usual, he was still present for approximately 65 per cent of all sitting days and he was named to 17 committees. On 23 Feb. 1700 he was honoured with the king’s presence at his 80th birthday dinner. Post Boy, 24-27 Feb. 1700. For all his advanced years, he remained an influential broker in Parliament. A list compiled by Robert Harley assigned Thomas Newport to Bradford’s interest in the Commons in early 1700 and Bradford was himself noted as being a possible supporter of the new mixed ministry in July. Cocks Diary, 310, 317. Bradford was said to have been ‘very much indisposed’ in September and had still not recovered the following month. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 690, 693.

The Parliaments of 1701 and the Reign of Anne

It was perhaps on account of his increasing infirmity that the Newport interest in Shropshire seems to have been managed by Lord Newport in the two general elections of 1701 and although Bradford took his seat at the opening of the first Parliament of the year on 6 Feb. 1701 and attended regularly until its close (approximately 81 per cent of all sitting days) his involvement in the House’s daily business does appear to have declined. Absent on 10 Feb. he was consequently omitted from the standing committees, though he was added to the committee for the journal on 28 March. On 15 May he was appointed one of the managers of the conference concerning the bill for regulating the Fleet prison and court of king’s bench. He was named on 6 June a manager of the conference that day concerning the impeachments against the Whig peers of the previous ministry and he fulfilled this role again in another conference on 10 June. On 16 June Bradford was granted leave of absence from the trial of John Somers, Baron Somers, scheduled for the following day, but he was still noted as being present on the attendance list on 17 June and on the two days following, although his verdict (if he did not abstain) in Somers’ trial is strangely not recorded.

Bradford’s heir was set upon by highwaymen while travelling between Leominster and Worcester that autumn of 1701 but he was able to fight them off killing one in the process. New State of Europe, 18-21 Oct. 1701. Bradford returned to the House for the second Parliament of 1701 on 31 Dec. after which he attended 79 per cent of all sitting days. On 6 and 10 Feb. he was as a manager for conferences on the bill to attaint the prince of Wales (James Edward Stuart, the Pretender) and he had the same role in one of 20 Feb. on the measure to attaint his mother, Mary of Modena. In February 1702 he agreed to make use of his interest along with his fellow courtier Hugh Cholmondeley, earl of Cholmondeley, on behalf of one of Cholmondeley’s retainers. Chesh. ALS, DCH/L/49/13, Cholmondeley to W. Adams, 17 Feb. 1702. At the coronation of Queen Anne in April he demonstrated similar generosity when he was seen to throw a number of silver medals to the crowd in the abbey. Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 25 Apr. 1702. On 7 May he was named a manager of the conference on the bill for altering the Abjuration Oath and on 20 May he was likewise named one of the managers of the conference considering the bill for the encouragement of privateers. HMC Lords, n.s. v. 43n. He took his seat at the opening of Queen Anne’s first Parliament on 21 Oct. after which he was present for 86 per cent of all sitting days in the first session. On 25 Nov. he arrived in the House shortly after the poorly-attended prayers that day, at which there were only five lords, and argued successfully against a motion made by Henry Yelverton, Viscount Longueville, that the House should be adjourned in protest at the poor attendance. Nicolson, London Diaries, 133. Estimated an opponent of the occasional conformity bill in January 1703, on 16 Jan. Bradford voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. Add. 70075, newsletter, 19 Jan. 1703.

However much Bradford may have liked to distribute largesse to the masses on formal occasions, he seems to have been flinty-hearted when it came to his business dealings. In September 1703 around the time of his marriage into the Finch family, the financially embarrassed Sir Roger Mostyn^‡ wrote to Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, lauding his new patron and expressing his gladness at being ‘by any means free from my Lord Bradford.’ Add. 29589, f. 149. Even so, there is evidence that Bradford may have been losing his touch in other directions and William Gower^‡ reported to Robert Harley that both Bradford and Sir Thomas Powys^‡ had been ‘imposed upon by those that pretend to be their friends’ in Ludlow. Add. 70198, W. Gower to R. Harley, 3 Dec. 1703. Bradford was one of the commission of five peers that prorogued Parliament on 4 November. Daily Courant, 5 Nov. 1703. He then took his seat in the second session on 9 Nov. 1703. Present on almost 80 per cent of all sitting days, during the month he was again noted as an opponent of the occasional conformity bill and on 14 Dec. he voted against passing the measure. On 25 Mar. 1704 he registered his dissent from the decision to put the question on whether the failure to censure Robert Ferguson was an encouragement to the crown’s enemies, but he did not sign the dissent against the main question itself. Two days later Bradford was nominated a manager of the conference on the bill for public accounts.

Bradford gradually relinquished his official responsibilities in the final few years of his life. On the death of King William in early 1702 he had been relieved of the cofferership and in November 1704, following reports earlier in the year that he had again been seriously ill, he was succeeded by his son, Newport, as lord lieutenant of Shropshire. Add. 70073-4, newsletter, 2 Apr. 1702; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 160, 412. He was far from relinquishing all interest, though. In February 1704 Marlborough noted how he had had one man ‘so powerfully recommended’ to him by Bradford that he ‘could not refuse the request’ and in June of that year Bradford was also instrumental in having William Gower removed as governor of Ludlow. Add. 61382, f. 8; Add. 70199, J. Higgons to R. Harley, 1 June 1704. He also continued to attend the House with a regularity that belied his failing health and advanced years. Having taken his seat in the third session on 24 Oct. 1704 he was thereafter present for almost 83 per cent of all sitting days. On 8 Nov. he was present in the committee of the whole chaired by Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, when considering the construction of strangers’ galleries in the House. Clearly unwilling to admit of any such innovation, Bradford moved ‘for only putting the old excluding orders in execution’ in which he was seconded by John Poulett, Earl Poulett. Nicolson, London Diaries, 221. On 27 Feb. 1705 he was placed on the committee assigned to draw up heads for a conference on the continuing dispute between the houses on the ‘Aylesbury men’ and on 12 Mar. he was chosen to be a manager of the conference held that day on the militia bill.

Bradford continued to recommend men to Marlborough for promotion in the army. Add. 61290, f. 42; Add. 61297, f. 77. He also maintained his aversion to the exiled royal house and an analysis of the peerage of April 1705 noted Bradford as a supporter of the Hanoverian succession. With advancing age came occasional eccentric behaviour. In September 1705 Lady Wentworth described how Bradford had made a scene in the parish church at Twickenham by tearing down the escutcheons, which had been displayed in the church for the funeral of Sir William Humble, and stamping them underfoot. Bradford had always been described as a haughty peer, and Lady Wentworth could only speculate on the reason for his outburst by suggesting that ‘some say it put him in mind of death and that was what vexed him, others say it was something in the arms that offended him, there being more in them than did belong to Sir William.’ Wentworth Pprs, 49. Whatever the reason for his outburst, Bradford showed no imminent signs of following Humble. He took his seat in the House for the first session of the 1705 Parliament on 27 Oct., following which he was present on approximately 79 per cent of all sitting days. On 13 Nov., in a debate on whether a request for papers concerning the Scottish succession should be included in the Address to the queen, John Thompson, Baron Haversham, moved that the Lords might be summoned ‘for that he had something more to offer’. Bradford objected ‘that something should be specially proposed’, but Rochester disagreed, insisting that Haversham’s motion need only be seconded. It was noted, however, that Haversham humoured his ancient colleague and ‘pitched upon the state of the nation, as a copious subject.’ Nicolson, London Diaries, 303. On 6 Dec. he voted with the court in support of the motion in the committee of the whole that the Church was not in danger under the queen’s administration. WSHC, 3790/1/1, p. 60; PH, xxxii. 259. He was appointed a manager of the conference held 7 Feb. 1706 to discuss the place clause inserted by the Commons in the regency bill, and he continued in this role in subsequent conferences on 11 and 19 February. On 9 and 11 Mar. he was similarly nominated a manager of the conference convened to condemn the printed letter of Sir Rowland Gwynne^‡ to Stamford.

Bradford was one of those to subscribe to the loan to the Emperor in March 1706. Add. 61602, ff. 3-4. In June he delivered the address of the corporation of Shrewsbury to the queen, congratulating her on the recent success at Ramillies, a noteworthy event because of Shrewsbury’s normally staunch Tory loyalties. He returned to the House for the second session on 4 Feb. 1707, of which he attended approximately 31 per cent of sitting days. On 3 Mar., in his absence, the House was informed of a breach of his privilege but those responsible were discharged on 8 Mar. after apologizing for their misdemeanour. He then attended five of the sittings of the nine-day session that convened on 14 April. Local issues came to the fore during the summer and in June Bradford let fire an infuriated missive to the lord chancellor, William Cowper, Baron (later Earl) Cowper, on account of his suspicions that Harley intended to block his nominees for the magistracy in Radnorshire. Herts. Archives and Local Stud. D/EP F152, Bradford to Cowper, 30 June 1707; Glassey, JPs, 182. Later that year he attempted to secure an order excusing Sir William Fowler from being pricked sheriff (probably in Shropshire), offering as an explanation ‘one that he was his godson, the other that he was a fool.’ Add. 70024, f. 253.

Bradford’s interest was still being courted in August 1707 when the death of William Bromley opened up the contest in Worcestershire. Surr. Hist. Cent., 371/14/L29. He took his seat in the following session on 23 Oct. 1707 and attended on approximately 65 per cent of all sitting days. In January 1708 he was expected to offer ‘all the opposition he can’ to the Droitwich bill in an effort to protect the interests of his great-grandson. Northants. RO, Montagu (Boughton) mss 77, no. 74. Bradford sat for the last time on 1 Apr. 1708. Later that month he presented the queen with an address from Shropshire celebrating her delivery from the attempted Jacobite invasion of Scotland earlier that year. London Gazette, 22-26 Apr. 1708. In May he was included in a printed list of the first Parliament of Great Britain as a Whig. In spite of his advanced years, Bradford was said, bizarrely, to have been contemplating remarriage in the period leading up to his death. The object of his attentions was apparently Lucy, daughter of Sir Thomas Skipworth. Wentworth Pprs, 129. By the middle of September he was reported to be dangerously ill and ‘at the point of death’, which put paid to any such notions. Add. 61546, f. 112; Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 350. He died shortly afterwards at his house at Twickenham. Dublin Gazette, 25-28 Sept. 1708. Bradford was buried at Wroxeter, where his funeral was reported to have been ‘the greatest’ in the county since that of Sir Richard Lee. NLW, Ottley ms 1959. His will, which he commenced in December 1699 but to which were added a number of codicils, bore all the marks of his increasingly irascible disposition. He bequeathed his house at Twickenham to his younger son, Thomas, who was appointed sole executor, and made substantial bequests to family and retainers totalling in excess of £20,000, though some of these gifts were revoked in his many rewritings. Bradford’s daughter, Elizabeth, Lady Lyttelton, the widow of Sir Edward Lyttelton^‡, 2nd bt., was the most prominent loser. Initially granted a bequest of £500, a codicil of 17 Feb. 1702 warned that this would be revoked if she married the Tory, and later Jacobite, Edward Harvey^‡ and the threat was carried out in a subsequent codicil of 27 Oct. 1702. TNA, PROB 11/504. For all his later eccentricities, Bradford was described in the ‘Characters of the Court of Great Britain’ as ‘a just critic, a judge and lover of poetry, painting and nice living’. Macky Mems. 58. He was succeeded by his eldest son Richard, who had for several years commanded the Newport interest in Shropshire, as 2nd earl of Bradford. Boyer, Anne Annals, vii. 348-9.