CRAVEN, William (? 1608-97)

Craven’s ancestors were in trade: something of which his contemporaries never tired of reminding him. His father made his fortune in London and served as lord mayor between 1610 and 1611. At his death in 1618 the elder Craven left a vast fortune, much of which was left in trust to his ten-year-old heir. During his minority Craven’s mother bought a number of estates in Berkshire, Warwickshire and several other counties, which provided him with a substantial income leaving him free to indulge his ambitions of becoming a great soldier and a patron of the arts. VCH Warws. vi. 72. Craven was able to secure a knighthood and elevation to the barony of Craven while apparently still a minor in March 1627. It was rumoured that the peerage was to have cost him £16,000 with marriage to one of the kinswomen of George Villiers^†, duke of Buckingham, part of the arrangement. In the event he paid £7,000 to the crown for the honour. Although the marriage failed to come to pass he probably paid an additional sum to Buckingham as well. For all his prodigious fortune, Craven’s humble origins appear to have prevented him from being accepted entirely within county society and in the years before the Civil War, even though he was one of only 10 peers with an annual income of more than £9,000, he was excluded from appointment to a lord lieutenancy. JMH, xxix. 31-32; Victor Stater, Noble Govt. 14-15.

Eager to make a mark as a warrior, Craven fought with distinction in the Thirty Years War during which he became devoted to the interests of the Palatine family. In 1637 Craven contributed £10,000 to an expeditionary force seeking to recapture the Palatinate and was taken prisoner with Prince Rupert, (later duke of Cumberland), at the siege of Lemgo. He was thereafter a life-long friend of the prince and his family, particularly of Elizabeth, ‘Winter Queen’ of Bohemia. E. Warburton, Mems. of Prince Rupert and the Cavaliers, i. 78, 83, 92n. According to some reports, Craven and the queen later married (though this was almost certainly not the case). Oman, Elizabeth of Bohemia, 452n. Married or not Craven took upon himself the responsibility of providing for the exiled queen. His lavish generosity on her behalf attracted criticism from several sources with one commenting scathingly that:

his wealth is his greatest enemy, and yet his only friend. It begets in his inferiors, a disguised friendship; in his equals, envy. His vanity makes him accessible to the one; the meanness of his birth, person, parts, contemptible to the other… Had fortune conspired with nature and ranked him according to his degree, he might have crept away among the rout, his levities unknown. Verney Mems. i. 114.

Craven eschewed direct involvement in the Civil War preferring instead to accompany Queen Elizabeth to The Hague. He remained there throughout the war years and for much of the Interregnum. CSP Dom. 1641-3, p. 279. In 1651 he was noted as being present at the exiled king’s court in company with Aubrey de Vere, 20th earl of Oxford. HMC Portland, i. 558-9. Although at one point it was speculated that Charles II may have considered a match with one of his Palatine cousins through Craven’s influence, it was thought that the king’s principal interest was in Craven’s money. Godfrey, A Sister of Prince Rupert, 224-5. Craven was certainly more than willing to help his exiled monarch and according to some sources he loaned him as much as £50,000. Warburton, Mems. of Prince Rupert, iii. 441-2n; Survey of London, xviii. 29. At Charles’s departure for Scotland, Craven appears to have taken charge of Lucy Walters and her son James Scott, later duke of Monmouth, though he seems to have exceeded his commission, compelling Walters to resort to legal action to secure custody of her son. Collins, Peerage, v. 449.

Craven’s financial assistance to the royalist cause brought him to the attention of the Council of State and in 1651 many of his extensive estates, which were spread over eight counties, were sequestered in spite of his efforts to be comprehended within the act of pardon. Craven was successful in having the order overturned two years later and on 2 Sept. 1654 Oliver Cromwell^‡ ordered a stop to any further sale of the estate. CCC, pp. 1617-18; VCH Suss. ix. 138. Petitioning appears to have continued late into the year, when Bulstrode Whitelocke^‡ also claimed to have given Craven his assistance. Whitelocke Diary, 397. In spite of Cromwell’s order, Craven seems to have been compelled to make repeated efforts to prevent invasions of his property. He was certainly in England for that purpose in July 1659, though his presence may also have been connected with the attempted royalist rising that year. His name was mentioned in several reports relating to the rebellion and rumours circulated that he had made £20,000 available for the insurgents. CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 27; Whitelocke Diary, 524n.; CCSP, iv. 302, 314. In spite of his scheming, in September Craven was issued with a licence permitting him to remain in England until the close of the year. CSP Dom. 1659-60, p. 567.

The reign of Charles II, 1660-85

In advance of the Convention, Craven was noted by Philip Wharton, 4th Baron Wharton, among those peers who had withdrawn during the Civil War. With the king on the point of being welcomed home, Craven was one of the first peers to take his seat in the restored House, where his previous experience was clearly welcomed. HMC 3rd Rep. 89; Swatland, 77. Present on almost 90 per cent of all sitting days in the first session of the Convention, on 27 Apr. he was named to the committee for privileges and the committee to draw up heads for a conference with the Commons on the question of the settlement of the nation. During the rest of his long parliamentary career, Craven continued to be similarly assiduous in his attendance. He failed to attend only two parliamentary sessions during a period of 37 years and it was not uncommon for him to attend every day of each session. It was perhaps as a result of such diligence that he was named frequently to committees on a broad range of subjects.

On 1 May 1660 he was named to the sub-committee for examining the Journal and that considering the letter of thanks to be sent to the king. Three days later, Craven wrote to the king directly recommending to his notice Thomas Clarges^‡ as well as suggesting appropriate rewards for George Monck, later duke of Albemarle. CCSP, v. 10. On 7 May Craven was one of the four peers nominated to meet with the same number from the Commons to consider the king’s proclamation and on 9 May Craven was added to the committee discussing the king’s reception. The following day Sir Richard Temple^‡, bt. brought a message from the Commons concerning abuses being perpetrated on Craven’s property, following which the House ordered a stop to all such activities. In spite of his efforts to protect them from alienation, many of Craven’s estates had been lost during the Commonwealth and much of his activity in the months following the return of the king was spent securing their restoration. TNA, SP 46/105, ff. 216-17.

On 17 May Craven reported back from the committee established to consider an ordinance concerning the bringing in of the arrears of assessments for the army. During the committee’s deliberations, Craven approached the judges for their opinion touching a petition from Trinity House as the ownership of the corporation’s property was bound up with the case’s outcome. Swatland, 78-79. Two days later, the House ordered that all papers relating to the sale of lands belonging to the king, queen or Craven were to be inventoried, and on 6 June it was ordered that all votes concerning the seizing and selling of his estates during the Commonwealth were null and void. Craven was restored to full possession and of all arrears of rents and profits, though it was not until 4 July that he was empowered to recover the documents. On 23 June, the House was compelled to send for one Edward Baker and several others, who had refused to acknowledge Craven’s restoration and had spoken contemptuously of the order. The House confirmed its original judgment by ratifying the order in all points. Three days later two more recalcitrant former beneficiaries of Craven’s sequestration were sent for and on 2 July yet another unwilling former owner was ordered to the bar of the House to explain his refusal to comply. Craven’s efforts to secure full restitution of his property continued and on 24 Aug. he was granted a further order allowing him to search for his missing goods and household belongings.

Craven returned to the House for the second session of the Convention on 6 Nov. 1660 following which he was present on almost 96 per cent of all sittings. On 14 Nov. he was added to two committees, that concerning the bill for the Fens and the committee considering the case of the Protestants of Piedmont. At the coronation the following year, Craven was one of the peers to subscribe a voluntary gift to the king, characteristically contributing the maximum amount of £400. Add. 34217, f. 73. He took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 8 May 1661, after which he was present on 93 per cent of all sittings. On 15 May he was granted a week’s leave of absence but he does not seem to have taken advantage of it as he continued to sit with only occasional interruptions throughout the remainder of the month. In July Craven was noted as being in favour of Oxford’s attempt to secure the lord great chamberlaincy and on 22 Aug. he was appointed to the council of the Royal Fishing of England, a body with which he came to be closely involved. Craven also seems to have taken an active role as one of the members of the Lords committee for the Journal, signing off the record of events on 25 Mar. and again on 4 Apr. 1662.

Besides his activities in the House, Craven continued to be an indefatigable supporter of the exiled queen of Bohemia. Unable to persuade the king to do so (the king, he complained, merely ‘puts me off with good words’), he also continued to provide the queen with financial assistance, undertaking to pay her an annual pension of £10,000, while placing his London residence in Drury Lane at her disposal. Oman, Elizabeth of Bohemia, 439; Warburton, Mems. of Prince Rupert, iii. 444. Craven also began a number of major building projects, most significantly that at Hampstead Marshall. VCH Berks. iv. 504. The queen did not live to see Craven’s plans realized. She remained at Drury Lane for some time, before removing to Leicester House shortly before her death in 1662. Despite their former close association, Prince Rupert was critical of Craven’s efforts on his mother’s behalf, while one commentator remarked on the queen’s departure from Craven House, ‘le pauvre Milor (the poor lord) Craven will be glad to be rid of her, so as not to be altogether eaten up.’ HMC Dartmouth, i. 4; Oman, Elizabeth of Bohemia, 452n. After the queen’s death, Craven remained in close contact with the surviving members of her family, maintaining a regular correspondence with Princess Elizabeth, abbess of the Lutheran convent at Herford. Add. 63743, ff. 22, 24, 32, 34, 37. He also served as intermediary between the Elector Palatine and the English court on at least one occasion. CSP Dom. 1664-5, p. 48.

Shortly after the commencement of the session beginning in February 1663 (of which he attended 93 per cent of all sittings), Craven was entrusted with the proxy of his brother-in-law, Percy Herbert, 2nd Baron Powis, which he held until the end of the session. On 24 Mar. 1663 Craven was one of those to be named a lord proprietor of Carolina in acknowledgement of their services in bringing about the Restoration. A further order of 12 Aug. declared all former grantees’ titles void, and encouraged the new proprietors to ‘proceed in the planting’ of the colony. TNA, PRO 30/24/48, f. 5. On 9 Apr. the House was informed that one of Craven’s menial servants, Lewis Ricer, had been arrested contrary to privilege. Ricer’s release was ordered and those responsible secured. While the Lords seemed more than ready to impose further punishment on the two men, Craven, displaying his habitual generosity, intervened on their behalf and secured their release on 30 April. Craven chaired a session of the committee considering the bill for street repair on 22 June and one for preventing duels on 10 July, though the latter was adjourned without discussion. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/1, pp. 399, 421. On 24 July he reported from the committee considering the bill for the relief of loyal indigent officers. The same month he was thought likely to favour the attempted impeachment of the lord chancellor, Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon, driven by George Digby, 2nd earl of Bristol, one of his co-proprietors in Carolina.

Craven appears to have been engaged in a dispute with Sir Edward Harley^‡ over estates at Lentwardine in Herefordshire since at least the summer of 1661. In 1663 the dispute was brought before the court of exchequer and disagreements between Craven and the Harley family over rights in the area persisted for much of the rest of his life. TNA, E134/15 Chas 2/Mich 5; Add. 70119, T. Harley to Sir E. Harley, 7 June 1661; 70086, J. Baber to same, 12 Nov. 1663; 70014, ff. 91-92, 186; 70234, Sir E. Harley to R. Harley, 12 May 1691. Craven took his seat in the new session on 16 Mar. 1664, after which he was present on each one of its 36 sittings. Early in the session, on 22 Mar. he was again entrusted with the proxy of Powis. Having attended the prorogation of 20 Aug. 1664, Craven took his seat in the new session on 24 Nov. after which he was present on 91 per cent of all sittings. Craven’s interests in London and at the Admiralty brought him into close contact with Albemarle, with whom he developed a close partnership, and with Samuel Pepys^‡. Although Craven thought well of him, Pepys’ opinion of Craven was scathing. On 18 Nov. 1664 at a committee of the Fishing chaired by Craven considering the establishment of a new lottery, Pepys recorded Craven’s embarrassing explanation of why other lotteries would oppose the establishment of the Virginia lottery, ‘for’, says he, ‘if I occupy a wench first, you may occupy her again your heart out; you can never have her maiden-head after I have once had it.’ On other occasions Pepys referred to his would-be patron as a ‘coxcomb’ and of being little more than Albemarle’s secretary. Pepys Diary, v. 323; vi. 197, 239, 258, 264, 305. Whatever Pepys’s opinion, in March 1665 Craven was rewarded for his loyalty and generosity, being advanced in the peerage as earl of Craven. He was introduced in the House on 1 Aug. 1665 by Albemarle (standing in for the absent lord great chamberlain) and conducted to his new place on the earls’ bench by Theophilus Clinton, earl of Lincoln, and Mountjoy Blount, earl of Newport. Still unmarried, Craven was also granted a special remainder to the barony of Craven in favour of his cousin William Craven of Lenchwick, with a remainder to his brother Sir Anthony Craven. Later the same year a further extension was granted to Sir Anthony’s grandson, Sir William Craven of Coombe, and it was ultimately this man’s son and heir, another William Craven, 2nd Baron Craven, who inherited the barony.

At the outbreak of plague in 1665 the majority of the court removed to Oxford but Craven remained in London, ‘out of friendship’ to Albemarle, who remained behind in his capacity as lord lieutenant of Middlesex. Clarendon, Life, ii. 403-4. Craven was consequently absent for the whole of the October 1665 session of Parliament which was convened in Oxford. During the crisis, Craven worked closely with both Albemarle and William Sancroft, dean of St Paul’s and later archbishop of Canterbury. Craven even produced notes stipulating basic regulations to prevent any further spread of the disease. Stowe 152, ff. 112-13. Convinced of the efficacy of establishing designated ‘pest-houses’, Craven rented land near Carnaby Street for such places and for a burial ground for the victims. He bought the land outright six years later and in 1687 he conveyed it to his heirs with the proviso that they continued to maintain buildings for ‘the relief, support, comfort, use and convenience of such of the poor inhabitants… as shall… be visited with the plague.’ Survey of London, xxxi. 196. Craven’s activities during the years 1665 to 1666 earned him the affection of the London crowd and Albemarle was extremely complimentary of Craven’s diligence in implementing efforts to combat the disease. CSP Dom. 1665-6, p. 212. Craven also appears to have involved himself with the election for Southwark triggered by the death of George Moore^‡ in December 1665. He was certainly present along with a number of other courtiers at the reading of the writ and it is reasonable to expect that he would have supported the election of Thomas Clarges, Albemarle’s brother-in-law. HP Commons, 1660-90, i. 415.

Perhaps as a result of his activities in London, in April 1666 Craven was added to the Privy Council. The great fire of September 1666 found Craven once again to the fore in managing affairs in the city and proved the beginnings of a new career for him as a self-appointed ‘fire marshal’ in London. His by now legendary generosity remained uncurbed and it was rumoured that he had offered to provide the funds for rebuilding the Royal Exchange out of his own pocket. This came only two months after he had subscribed £2,000 towards building the Prince. HMC Le Fleming, 40, 42.

Craven took his seat in the new session on 18 Sept. 1666, following which he was present on 91 per cent of all sittings. On 15 Oct. he joined with Arthur Capell, earl of Essex, in introducing into the chamber Richard Boyle, earl of Burlington. His experience in combating the plague may have contributed to him being named on 8 Oct. to the committee preparing a bill to prevent the spread of the plague and on 16. Jan. 1667 he was also added to the committee for making provision for those infected by plague. Similarly, his involvement in combating the fire saw him named on 11 Jan. 1667 to the committee considering the bill for appointing a court of judicature to end controversies over houses destroyed in the fire. On 23 Jan. he was one of 29 peers to subscribe their protest when the House voted against adding a clause to this bill permitting appeal to the king and House of Lords. On 5 Feb. he was appointed to the committee considering the bill for rebuilding the city. In the aftermath of both disasters Craven demonstrated his customary munificence by lending large sums to the treasury, the extent of which was indicated by a warrant of June 1667 authorizing repayment of £1,000. CTB, ii. 165.

Craven was absent for the two-day session at the end of July 1667, but he took his seat once more on 10 Oct., at the opening of the next session, after which he was present on 95 per cent of all sittings. The formation of the Triple Alliance against France in January 1668 gave rise to rumours that Craven was to command a force of 4,000 foot and 1,500 horse in Flanders, but nothing came of the proposed mobilization. Add. 36916, f. 60. Instead Craven remained in the House where he was again named to numerous committees but he does not appear to have played a particularly prominent part in any of them. Significantly, he was named on 4 Mar. to that considering the Ashdown Forest bill, which may have had an impact on Craven’s own estate there. Craven was ordered into action on 24 Mar. in command of the Life Guards in order to suppress the ‘bawdy house’ riots. Pepys Diary, ix. 129-30; HJ, xxix. 539. On 26 Mar. he was named to another committee on a bill occasioned by the fire: that seeking to indemnify the City’s sheriffs as a result of prisoners escaping in the confusion. Craven entered into partnership with Prince Rupert and Anthony Ashley Cooper, earl of Shaftesbury (another of the lords proprietors of Carolina) during the year, subscribing to the new Hudson’s Bay Company. Three years later, the three men co-operated again in the establishment of the Royal Africa Company. Haley, Shaftesbury, 231, 233.

Craven’s efforts to personify an ideal of nobility occasionally misfired. In October 1668 he was deputed to convey the new Venetian ambassador to his first audience with the queen. Craven, ‘who sometimes sins by being too exact’ caused the ambassador offence by insisting that he be received in a drawing room rather than, as was usually the case, half way up the stairs. He was eventually forced to capitulate. CSP Ven. 1666-8, pp. 279-80. Craven’s advice was more warmly welcomed in other quarters. In July 1669 he was one of five members of the Privy Council to be named to a standing committee to investigate conventicles and Craven’s financial assistance was certainly welcomed by his old Palatine associates. In August 1669 Elizabeth, Princess Palatine, wrote to thank Craven for advising her ‘of the season to solicit the establishment of my pension in England,’ and he desired that he might raise the matter with Bristol. Add. 36916, f. 139; 63743, f. 24.

Craven took his seat in the new session on 19 Oct. 1669, following which he was present on each of the session’s 36 sittings. His partnership with Albemarle continued that year with his appointment as custos rotulorum for Middlesex and was again made apparent by his inclusion in the duke’s will as one of those recommended to oversee his heir’s ‘tuition and breeding’. TNA, PROB 11/332. At Albemarle’s death in January 1670 Craven was appointed commander of his former regiment, which was renamed the Coldstream Guards. HMC Le Fleming, 67. He also succeeded the duke as lord lieutenant of Middlesex and Southwark, preferment which was ‘no more than you deserve’, according to Elizabeth, Princess Palatine. Add. 36916, f. 161; 63743, ff. 40-41. Craven’s influence in London was further underlined with his election as one of the elder brethren in February and as master of the Trinity House of Deptford in June 1670. HMC 8th Rep. 254; Evelyn, Diary, iii. 581.

Craven took his seat in the new session on 14 Feb. 1670. Present on 98 per cent of all sittings, on 17 Mar. he registered his dissent at the resolution to give a second reading to the bill allowing John Manners, styled Lord Roos (later duke of Rutland), to divorce. Craven may well have objected to a measure widely believed to be promoted by those eager to press the king to divorce Queen Catherine. Throughout the remainder of the session Craven was again involved with committees considering legislation with which he had a close personal interest. On 29 Mar. he was named to the committee considering an additional act for rebuilding London and on the same day to that considering the dean of St Paul’s bill. On 9 Nov. he was named to the committee considering a bill enabling Christopher Monck, 2nd duke of Albemarle, at that point still a minor, to re-convey land mortgaged by his father. Having attended the prorogations of 16 Apr. and 30 Oct. (when he introduced Henry Bennet, earl of Arlington into the House), Craven took his seat in the House once more on 4 Feb. 1673, following which he was present on 95 per cent of all sittings. On 14 Mar. he was added to the committee for the bill for new buildings and on 29 Mar. he chaired and reported from the committee for the bill for the encouragement of trade to Greenland. PA, HL/PO/CO/1/3, p. 45.

As a Shropshire landowner, in August 1673 Craven headed a petition of the burgesses of Oswestry for a renewal of their charter. CSP Dom. 1673, p. 481. Craven’s continuing prominence at court was made apparent by his inclusion within an anonymous squib earlier in the year. Listed under ‘Lot 41’ Craven’s role in the rebuilding of London was held up for ridicule as ‘the art of making brick without straw… wherein is showed a cheap and expeditious way for building any part of the city.’ Haley, Shaftesbury, 327-8. Part of the motivation for this assault may have been Craven’s petition of March to develop the site of his house in Drury Lane, promising to, ‘improve the same by several streets and regular buildings, which will be both ornamental and useful.’ N.G. Brett-James, Growth of Stuart London, 391.

Craven was present on each day of the curtailed four-day session of October –November 1673, before taking his seat once more for the new session of January-February 1674, of which he attended on each of the 38 sittings. In spite of growing political tension, early in February he predicted ‘good harmony’ between the king and Parliament. Bodl. ms. Eng. lett. c 196, f. 46. In August he was appointed commander in chief of all the forces in London and Westminster during the king’s absence at Windsor, a duty he had also overseen three years previously. CSP Dom. 1673-5, pp. 327-8; CSP Dom. 1671, p. 500; Add. 63743, f. 50. Problems in Carolina led to Shaftesbury, Craven and Sir George Carteret^‡ ordering the dismissal of the governor, Sir John Yeamans, who was replaced by one of Shaftesbury’s followers. Haley, Shaftesbury, 365.

Craven was present for the prorogation of 10 Nov. 1674 when he introduced into the House his kinsman, William Herbert, earl of Powis, and also the lord treasurer, Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby. Craven took his seat in the House again in the new session that commenced on 13 Apr. 1675, of which he attended 95 per cent of all sittings. On 20 Apr. he was entrusted with the proxy of his brother-in-law, George Coventry, 3rd Baron Coventry, and on 28 May he was again one of the members of the Journal committee to sign off the record. In August he was engaged in suppressing riots in London. Verney ms mic. M636/28, W. Fall to Sir R.Verney, 11 Aug. 1675. Craven took his seat at the opening of the ensuing session on 13 October. He then continued to attend each of its 21 days and on 20 Nov. he voted against addressing the king to request a dissolution. Bodl. Carte 72, ff. 292-3; Bodl. ms Eng. hist. e. 710, ff. 14-15.

During the 15-month prorogation that followed, Craven was among the majority finding Charles Cornwallis, 3rd Baron Cornwallis, not guilty of murder in June 1676. State Trials, vii. 157-8. He returned to the House on 15 Feb. 1677. His level of attendance remained impressive with him attending again on every day of the long-drawn out session. On 8 Mar. he reported from the committee considering the bill for execution of writs in Cirencester, and on 10 Apr. he reported from that considering Thomas Barkeley’s bill. On 8 Feb. 1678 the House was again informed of the arrest of one of Craven’s servants contrary to privilege, the offending parties being were released on 4 Mar. after admitting their fault and craving pardon. On 4 Apr., he voted Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, not guilty in his trial for murder.

In spite of his lavish generosity, Craven appears always to have remained on the fringes of royal favour. He never quite cast off his reputation as a buffoon and perhaps suffered also from being too closely associated with the party of James Stuart, duke of York, for which Shaftesbury dubbed him doubly vile in his assessment of May 1677. CSP Dom. 1675-6, p. 371. Craven’s religious sympathies may have been a further factor in keeping him on the margins. Craven was one of the peers generally approached by Quakers in the hopes of achieving redress and in 1677, along with Prince Rupert and York, he appears to have used his influence on behalf of the imprisoned Quaker theologian, Robert Barclay. C.W. Horle, Quakers and the Eng. legal system 1660-88, 186n. Barclay had gained the confidence of Elizabeth, Princess Palatine, and it was no doubt in response to her request that Craven agreed to help him. Godfrey, A Sister of Prince Rupert, 326. Princess Elizabeth certainly wrote to her brother, Prince Rupert, and it is fair to assume that Craven would have acted in concert with him. Friends House Lib. Port Folio, D 74. Several years later, Craven’s name arose in a letter of March 1682 from Robert Frampton, bishop of Gloucester, to Archbishop Sancroft, in which Frampton complained of one of Craven’s tenants, ‘a Scottish dissenter’ (perhaps Barclay again) who was suspected of using his house as a conventicle. Bodl. Tanner 36, f. 251.

Craven took his seat in the ensuing session on 23 May 1678, after which he was present on 93 per cent of all sittings. On 5 July he registered his dissent at the resolution to ascertain the relief of the petitioner in the cause of Darrell v. Whichcot. Revelations about the Popish Plot that broke in the late summer brought Craven to the fore in London at the command of the local militia, though he had been troubled earlier in the summer by members of his own regiment mutinying over lack of pay. Verney ms mic. M636/31, J. Verney to E. Verney, 6 June 1678. If his manner and some of his sympathies left him occasionally on the margins, his efficiency in dealing with crises and unquestioning loyalty undoubtedly engendered respect. His diligence in executing the order to disarm Catholics in London in October elicited a favourable response from Francis Aungier^‡, earl of Longford [I]. In the midst of taking command of the military response to the crisis in London Craven remained an active member of the House. Having attended the prorogations of 1 and 29 Aug. and 1 Oct., he took his place in the new session on 21 Oct. following which he was present on 92 per cent of all sittings. On 26 Dec. he voted in favour of insisting on the Lords’ amendments to the supply bill and the following day voted against the motion to commit Danby. On 31 Dec. he was added to the committee considering the information regarding the Popish Plot. Bodl. Rawl. A 136, f. 2.

Craven was mentioned as being one of York’s ‘twelve disciples’ in February 1679. CSP Dom. 1679-80, p. 68. The association may help to explain Craven’s omission from the reconstituted Privy Council later that year. HMC Var. ii. 394. In advance of the new Parliament Craven was assessed by Danby as a likely supporter in a series of forecasts drawn up early in March. Craven took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Mar.; he was present on every day of the first session, abandoned after six days, and on 98 per cent of sitting days of the second 61-day session. On 1 Apr. he voted against the Danby attainder and on 14 Apr. again demonstrated his support for the former lord treasurer by voting against agreeing with the Commons in the bill. The following day he was added to the committee for the bill to hinder the lord treasurer and other officers from taking advantage of their positions. Craven was deputed to enquire into a complaint made by Lady Powis on 2 May about a suspected break-in at her home in Lincolns Inn Fields. He reported his findings the following day and on 10 May he voted against appointing a joint committee to consider the method of proceeding against the impeached lords. On 27 May he probably voted for the right of the bishops to stay in the House during capital cases.

Following the dissolution, Craven was active in the elections for Middlesex when he was said to have been approached by some of the local grandees to offer his support for the candidature of Sir William Smith^‡, but despite such influential backing Smith proved reluctant to stand. Verney ms mic. M636/33, Dr. W.Denton to Sir R.Verney, 31 July 1679; HP Commons, 1660-90, iii. 446. Craven took his seat in the new Parliament on 21 Oct. 1680, when he joined with James Compton, 3rd earl of Northampton, in introducing into the House John Robartes, earl of Radnor. Craven was again assiduous in his attendance, being present on 89 per cent of all sittings. Although he had been actively involved with taking depositions from informants and with the maintenance of order in London during the Popish Plot, he seems not to have been convinced of the extent of the conspiracy. Bodl Rawl. A 135, ff. 96, 97. He voted to reject the Exclusion Bill on first reading on 15 Nov. and the following month voted with the minority in finding William Howard, Viscount Stafford, not guilty of treason. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, series II, box 4, folder 173. His stance may have contributed to his continuing exclusion from the Privy Council which (along with that of several others of York’s circle) became the subject of a plea from York to Laurence Hyde, later earl of Rochester, in which York insisted that the king ‘might very well make room for them all, and do himself no harm.’ Clarendon Corresp. i. 48.

Craven’s continuing connection with Prince Rupert’s family was underlined by his standing proxy to the Elector Palatine at his installation as a Garter knight in January 1681. Bodl. Carte 222, f. 236. In advance of the new Parliament, Danby had again assessed Craven as a likely supporter. As before Craven was left in command of the troops in London and Westminster during the Parliament of Oxford, although in spite of his responsibilities in London he made a point of attending on three days (22-24 Mar.) of the brief seven-day assembly. As his absence from the capital had occasioned some concerns as to who should stand in for him while he was away, he returned to London, but not before he had signed a proxy on 22 Mar. in favour of Albemarle. Craven was reappointed to the Privy Council in March 1681. The same month he found himself required to mediate over a challenge between Prince Philip, son of Elizabeth of Bohemia, and the Sieur de Seissne. CSP Dom. 1680-1, pp. 204, 214, 216. In April he was one of those rumoured to be appointed lieutenant general of an army to be commanded by Albemarle, though there was some confusion about quite which troops were to constitute the force. Verney ms mic. M636/35, J. Verney to Sir R. Verney, 11 Apr. 1681. The following month he was one of 24 peers to petition the king on behalf of Philip Herbert, 7th earl of Pembroke, who stood indicted for murder. TNA, SP/415/192; CSP Dom. 1680-1, p. 298. Two months later he had his revenge on Shaftesbury when he was one of the members of council to sign the warrant for his former colleague’s commitment. Morrice, Entring Bk. ii. 283. Craven’s continuing relationship with the Palatine family was again apparent when he was named executor to Prince Rupert and trustee to his illegitimate daughter, Ruperta, at the Prince’s death in November 1682. Sir G. Bromley, Coll. of Original Royal Letters, p. xxvii; Hatton Corresp, (Cam. Soc. n.s. xxiii), 21; CSP Dom. 1682, p. 556; Verney ms mic. M636/37, newsletter, 30 Nov. 1682. Craven was chief mourner at the prince’s funeral. Warburton, Mems. of Prince Rupert, iii. 557.

The Revolution and after, 1685-97

Although the accession of James II ought to have offered Craven improved interest at court, there was some early suggestion that he might be required to resign his colonelcy of the Coldstream Guards. Craven resisted the move vigorously and the matter was evidently dropped. Collins, Peerage, v. 453. Craven took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament on 19 May, after which he was present on each day of the session. In June far from being sidelined he was rewarded with his appointment as lieutenant general over all forces. CSP Dom. 1685, p. 208. He was one of the peers nominated to appear as commissioners for the trial of Henry Booth, 2nd Baron Delamer, which took place on 14 Jan. 1686. JRL, Legh of Lyme mss, newsletter, 9 Jan. 1686; State Trials, xi. 515. In an assessment of early 1687, Craven was noted among those believed to be in favour of repealing the Test Act and in March he presented to the king the request of the Middlesex justices that as Catholics were to be dispensed from the Test the king might confer the same favour on all Protestants. The king was said to have received the petition coldly but promised to consider the matter. Add. 34510, ff. 18-19; CUL, 4879, f. 29. Craven was thereafter included on three further lists of those believed to be in favour of repeal and of the king’s policies drawn up over the coming months.

Although without an official position there, Craven seems to have acted as a kind of self-appointed major-domo at court and in April he was said to have interposed ‘as he does upon all such occasions’ to prevent a quarrel between William Cavendish, 4th earl of Devonshire, and Colonel Colepeper. In spite of his advanced age Craven also continued to be active as a local justice in Middlesex and in July he was involved in investigating the causes of rioting in the area. The same month he was one of only two of the governors of the Charterhouse hospital to refuse to subscribe a document declaring their unwillingness to admit a Catholic to the charity when the man refused to take the oaths. Although Craven seems to have been unwilling to compel the local justices to provide answers to the ‘Three Questions’ other than as their consciences dictated, for his own part he remained a loyal servant of the monarch. The following summer he was one of a small number of the nobility to celebrate the birth of the Prince of Wales with the customary dispensing of wine to the local populace. He also made a point of offering his personal congratulations to the king in typically obsequious form. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 31, 108-9, 169; Longleat, Bath mss, Thynne pprs. 42, f. 246; 43, ff. 124, 126. He was later one of those to subscribe a deposition certifying the circumstances of the prince of Wales’ birth, for which he was satirized in A Poem on the Deponents:

Then foolish Craven comes and doth depose,
A mark he has that he the prince well knows;
If’t be his lordship’s mark, he must ne’er rule,
For Europe knows that he’s mark’d out a fool. CSP Dom. 1687-9, p. 327; POAS, iv. 270.

Also in June 1688, Craven was one of the council to sign the warrant for committing the Seven Bishops. Bodl. Carte 76, f. 28.

Loyalty did not prevent Craven from being willing on occasion to assert his views even where they diverged from those of his master. In February 1688 Craven courted the king’s ire by repeating too often his opinion that lord chief justice Sir Mathew Hale^‡ was ‘a most learned, just and able judge’, for which he was firmly slapped down. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk. iv. 224. At the Revolution he was once more caught between loyalty to the king and the need to maintain order. Early in November he was placed in command of several regiments defending London. As protests in the capital gave way to rioting, Craven found himself in a potentially serious predicament when an attempt was made by the grand juries of London and Westminster to indict him for wilful murder or even treason over the deaths of several Protestants killed during an attack on a Catholic chapel in Clerkenwell. Kingdom without a King, 30. Having deflected this, in December he was petitioned by the inhabitants of Westminster to mobilize the militia and use his troops to disarm all Catholics. Add. 18675, f. 48. Accordingly, on 11 Dec. he oversaw the disarming of the Catholic population. Verney ms mic. M636/43, J. Stewkeley to Sir R. Verney, 11 Dec. 1688. The same day he was ordered by the provisional government to deploy the militia to curb the continuing disorder in the capital, but he explained that it had already been done. He was then specifically asked to sign the declaration to the Prince of Orange of 11 Dec., which he duly did. Craven attended the meetings convened in the council chamber in Whitehall from 12 to 15 December. Kingdom without a King, 67-72, 74, 79, 84-85, 92, 98, 109. Following the king’s return to London after his abortive first flight, Craven appears to have been determined to seize the opportunity of defending him to the death in the face of Prince William’s advance. Thus when Count Solmes was despatched to secure Whitehall, Craven drew up his regiment to oppose him vowing that he would rather be cut to pieces than allow Solmes past. He refused to quit his position until he was at last ordered to stand down by the king. Ailesbury Mems. 217; Life of James II, ii. 264; Dalrymple, Mems. (1790), ii(2), pp. 221-2. For all Craven’s apparent willingness to defend James II, he did not withdraw with the king but remained in England, where he continued to be a proponent of the ‘loyalist’ case. Present once more in the sessions of the Lords’ provisional government held towards the end of 1688, on 21 Dec. he seconded the motion put forward by Wharton for George Savile, marquess of Halifax, to remain in the chair as temporary speaker. Three days later, he supported James Bertie, earl of Abingdon, in moving that the parliamentary writs that had already been sent out should be proceeded upon. Kingdom without a King, 124, 150, 153, 158, 160, 165.

Craven took his seat in the Convention on 22 Jan. 1689, after which he was present on each of its sittings. On 25 Jan. he was added to the committee considering the problem posed by the Catholic population and on 29 Jan. he voted in favour of settling the crisis with the establishment of a regency. Two days later he voted against the insertion of the words declaring the prince and princess king and queen. On 4 Feb. he maintained his opposition to the deposing of King James by voting against the adoption of the word ‘abdicated’ and on 6 Feb. voted once again to reject the abdication and the vacancy of the throne. He then registered his dissent when the House resolved at last to adhere to the Commons’ motion and on 6 Mar. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to pass the bill for better regulating the trials of peers. His disinclination to accept the new state of affairs made him an obvious target for being stripped of his commands. The new king was quickly presented with an opportunity in March when the Coldstream Guards were ordered to Holland along with several other regiments. Craven’s men refused to go and it was probably as a result of this insubordination that he was deprived of both his colonelcy and his lieutenancy in Middlesex. Luttrell, Brief Relation, i. 509. He was also removed from the Privy Council and by the end of July he was said to have been ‘totally laid aside’. Add. 72517, ff. 25-26.

His removal from office did not prevent Craven from remaining a prominent member of the House. On 8 May 1689 he was named one of the managers of a conference considering the bill for the speedy convicting and disarming of Catholics and on 27 May he was again called upon as one of the managers of the conference for the additional poll bill. On 31 May he voted against the reversal of Titus Oates’s conviction for perjury. On 20-21 June Craven was named as a reporter for two further conferences on the bill enabling the commissioners of the great seal to execute the office of the lord chancellor or lord keeper and on 2 July he entered his dissent over the resolution to proceed with the impeachments of Blair, Vaughan and others. Craven was involved as manager of a series of conferences throughout July, including four concerning the succession to the throne (12, 13, 16, 19, 31 July) and two discussing the bill reversing the judgments against Titus Oates (22, 26 July). On 30 July he divided in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill reversing the judgments against Oates.

Classed by Carmarthen (as Danby had become) as a supporter of the court in a list of October 1689 to February 1690, in spite of his loss of office and advanced age, Craven remained influential. He also continued to attend the House regularly. Having taken his seat at the opening of the second session of the Convention he proceeded to attend on 89 per cent of all sittings. He then took his seat in the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690, after which he was present on 96 per cent of all sittings. On 24 Apr. he reported from the committee on Sir Humphrey Forster’s^‡ bill and in May he was nominated one of the commissioners for raising money for the French and Irish wars. Add. 29564, f. 361. He took his seat in the new session on 2 Oct. after which he was present on 90 per cent of all sittings. On 30 Oct. he subscribed the protest at the resolution to pass the bill for clarifying the powers of the Admiralty commissioners. On 3 Nov. he reported from the committee considering John Wentworth’s bill.

Craven attended the adjournments of 31 Mar. and 28 Apr. and the prorogations of 26 May, 30 June, 3 Aug. and 5 Oct. before taking his seat once more on 22 Oct. 1691. On 21 Nov. he reported from the committee for the bill to permit Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, and his countess to make a lease to assist with the payment of their debts. On 7 Jan. 1692 he reported from the committee considering the bill to enable Henry Compton, bishop of London, to sell land in Worcestershire and on 12 Jan. he entered his dissent over the resolution to receive the Norfolk divorce bill. Having attended the prorogations of 12 Apr., 24 May, 14 June, 11 July, 22 Aug., and 26 Sept., Craven took his seat once more at the opening of the new session on 4 November. Present on 93 per cent of all sittings, on 31 Dec. he voted against committing the place bill and on 2 Jan. 1693 he voted once more against the passage of the Norfolk divorce bill. On 3 Jan. he changed his mind and voted in favouring of passing the place bill. On 4 Feb. he joined with the majority in finding Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, not guilty of murder and on 1 and 3 Mar. he was named one of the managers of the conferences considering the bill for the prevention of malicious prosecutions. Craven took his seat in the following session on 7 November. His attendance was again impressive with him present on 95 per cent of all sittings and on 17 Feb. 1694 he voted in favour of reversing the court of chancery’s judgment in the case Montagu v. Bath. He took his seat again at the opening of the 1694-5 session on 12 Nov. 1694 (of which he attended 97 per cent of all sittings). On 23 Jan. 1695 he entered his dissent at the resolution to postpone implementation of the provisions of the bill for regulating treason trials.

During the dissolution Craven’s interest was sought in at least one of the counties where he held significant estates. Henry Mordaunt^‡ was eager to encourage Sir William Trumbull^‡ to put himself forward for one of the county seats in Berkshire and advised Trumbull to seek Craven’s assistance in the election. HMC Downshire, i. 413. Craven took his seat in the new Parliament on 22 Nov. 1695. Present on 93 per cent of all sittings, on 16 Dec. Craven was added to the managers of a conference with the Commons on the address. HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 6. While no Jacobite, Craven clearly remained lukewarm towards the new regime. On 24 and on 26 Feb. he was included in lists of Lords who had failed to subscribe the Association and he was again noted among those who had refused to sign in a further list compiled early the following month. Add. 36913, f. 266; HMC Lords, n.s. ii. 206-8; HMC Portland, iii. 574.

Craven took his seat in the new session on 20 Oct. 1696 following which he was present on 44 per cent of all sittings. On 23 Dec., he voted against passing the bill for attainting Sir John Fenwick^‡ and then subscribed the resulting protest. He continued to sit for the majority of January 1697 before attending for the final time on 23 January. He registered his proxy with John Sheffield, marquess of Normanby on 20 February. Failing health seems to have been the reason for his final departure from the House. Between 2 and 27 Feb. a series of bulletins reported on his steady recovery and how he was ‘on the mending hand’ while on 6 Mar. it was said that he had ‘miraculously recovered’ from ‘a sore fit of sickness’. Post Boy, 2-4 Feb., 4-6 Feb., 25-27 Feb. 1697; Portledge Pprs. 253. Such optimistic reports proved to be misplaced and Craven died on 9 Apr. at his house in Drury Lane of ‘a general decay of nature and a gangrene in his leg which would have killed the youngest and most vigorous man’. Add. 29575, f. 32; Portledge Pprs. 256. He was buried at Binley in Warwickshire. Craven’s former chaplain, Daniel Griffith, extolled his late master as ‘much lamented and ever to be remembered by me and many thousands more.’ Bodl. Craven 282, D. Griffith to 2nd Baron Craven, 19 June 1697.

According to the terms of his will of July 1689, with the exception of a number of small bequests made to members of his family, the bulk of Craven’s estate was conveyed to his cousin, William Craven of Coombe Abbey, who also succeeded to the barony by the terms of the special remainder. The extent of Craven’s London interests were reflected in a codicil of 1690 in which sums were conveyed to several London schools and hospitals as well as to the Trinity House. In the absence of a direct heir, Craven’s earldom became extinct.