Weston was adopted as his father’s heir when his older half-brother, Richard Weston, who appears to have suffered from some variety of mental illness, ‘fell distracted’, and so it was his sons by his second marriage who were named in the 1st earl’s patent of creation as the heirs to the peerage. In the event, the special remainder proved to be unnecessary as Richard Weston died during his father’s lifetime. Originating in Essex, the Weston family experienced a swift rise under Charles I, as a result of which they were able to expand their estates into Surrey and East Anglia and their political interest into Hampshire. After the death of George Villiers†, duke of Buckingham, the 1st earl of Portland assumed many of the responsibilities of the king’s former favourite. This pre-eminence was reflected in Weston’s marriage to the king’s cousin Lady Frances Stuart, though the match also served to highlight the religious divisions within the family. Both Portland and Weston appear to have been solid Anglicans, but the countess and the new Lady Weston were both Catholic and they appear to have used their interest to ensure that the majority of their children were brought up in their faith.
Prior to his succession to the earldom in 1635, Weston had been appointed to the governorship of the Isle of Wight, a command that he continued to hold until disabled by Parliament. Further family divisions were apparent on the outbreak of Civil War when, although Portland and two of his brothers (Thomas and Nicholas) remained loyal to the king, their youngest brother, Benjamin, supported Parliament. A prominent member of the ‘peace party’, Portland was imprisoned from 1642 until 1643, after which he joined the king at Oxford. On the king’s defeat he compounded for delinquency. He was fined £9,953, which was later reduced to £5,297.
Portland seems not to have been involved in royalist plotting, though both he and his brother Benjamin were active in attempting to assist Catholics under threat of sequestration.
Two days before resuming his place in the House in May 1660, Portland conveyed a message to the Lords requesting their assistance in his efforts to recover a bronze statue of the late king that had stood in his father’s park at Putney. Portland appears to have sold his interest in the house prior to the war.
Portland took his seat in the House on 18 May 1660 and was thereafter present on 73 per cent of all sitting days of the session up until the September adjournment. Named to 22 committees, on 14 June he spoke in a session of the committee of privileges, arguing against moves to alter the oath of allegiance to make it more palatable to Catholics and urging that ‘the oath of fealty may be taken by us all’.
The elections for the new Parliament in the spring of 1661 found Portland enjoying only partial success in his efforts to employ his interest on the Isle of Wight. Although he was able to secure the return of William Glascock‡ at Newport, he failed to sway the voters to rally to Daniel O’Neill‡ at Newtown, leaving O’Neill with no option but to look elsewhere.
Portland took his seat at the opening of the new Parliament, after which he was present on 96 per cent of all sitting days. Named to more than 60 committees in the course of the session, he proved to be one of the most assiduous committee chairmen, no doubt acting in close concert with his friend Edward Hyde, earl of Clarendon. On 24 and 25 May he chaired sessions of the committee considering the bill for preserving the king’s person (reporting back from the committee on 27 May), and on 27 May he also chaired the committee for the bill for reversing the attainder of Thomas Wentworth†, earl of Strafford. Portland chaired the committee for Radcliffe’s bill on 5 June and reported the measure to the House later the same day, and on 27 June he chaired a session of the committee for the Hatfield level bill. On 1 July he chaired the committee considering the penal laws against Catholics and, following his report to the House the same day, it was resolved that the committee should meet again to consider whether anything further should be added. Portland continued to chair sessions of this committee on several occasions throughout the month, including one occasion on 3 July when he was also in the chair for committees considering the bill for confirming public acts, the masters in chancery bill and Francis Brudenell’s naturalization bill. He reported the findings of the committees considering these other three bills on 4 July and on 15 July he reported from the committee appointed to consider the restoration of the Council of the North. He recommended that a bill should be prepared to that effect to be introduced following the adjournment (though no minutes appear to have survived for the committee’s deliberations on this point). On 17 July he reported from the committee for the Westminster streets bill (again minutes are wanting for this committee) and, the same day, he registered his dissent once more at the resolution to pass the bill vacating Sir Edward Powell’s fines. Portland chaired the committee for the recommitted highways bill on 23 July, which was agreed to be reported back with amendments.
Following the adjournment Portland resumed his seat in the House on 20 November. Between 5 and 7 Dec. 1661 he chaired three sessions of the committee for confirming private acts, reporting the committee’s findings to the House after the third session. On 7 Dec. he also chaired the committee for Dr Peyton’s bill, the effect of which he reported to the House on 12 December. In the meantime, he chaired the committee for the duchy of Cornwall bill on 9 Dec. (reporting to the House the same day) and on 10 Dec. a further session of the committee considering the corporations bill, which had been recommitted but was then adjourned.
Portland was absent from the House over the Christmas recess between 20 Dec. and 7 Jan. 1662. On 11 Jan. he chaired the committee for the brokers’ bill and on 23 Jan. that considering the uniformity bill. On 4 Feb. he was named one of the managers of the conference concerning confirmation of three acts and the same day he chaired the committee for the Dudston and Kingsbarton bill. He chaired the committee again the following day, reporting the committee’s findings to the House on 8 February. In the meantime, on 6 Feb. he chaired the committee for the Admiralty bill.
Lady Portland was reported to have been disappointed not to have been appointed first lady of the bedchamber to Queen Catharine in February 1662, the honour going instead to the countess of Suffolk.
On 10 Apr. Portland was entrusted with the proxy of Henry Carey, earl of Dover, and just over a fortnight later with that of James Butler, duke of Ormond [I] (sitting as earl of Brecknock). Ormond had informed Clarendon that he had conveyed his proxy to Portland in a letter of 12 March.
In the midst of this activity, Portland managed to fit in a flying visit to Portsmouth between 12 and 13 May. Present on the attendance list in the House on both those days, he appears to have travelled to Portsmouth on the afternoon of 12 May, dispatched a quick message to Clarendon that evening reporting on the preparations for the reception of Queen Catharine, in which he apologized for the ‘imperfections’ of his account (having ‘not slept since I saw you’), and then returned to London in time to resume his place in the House the next day.
Little is known of Portland’s activities following the prorogation, but in November 1662 he wrote to secretary Henry Bennet (later earl of Arlington) informing him that the Lords had declined meeting the commission for assessing the value of peers’ estates because only two – Portland himself and Arthur Capell, earl of Essex – had so far submitted any returns.
Besides his concerns with the lord chancellor’s standing, Portland was engaged with his own affairs. Shortly before the House reassembled he had been involved in efforts to settle a long-standing dispute with Bulstrode Whitelocke‡. The dispute had originated with the death of Dr Thomas Winston in 1655, who had bequeathed to Portland one of his properties. Whitelocke, who had been involved in drawing up the will and whose family also stood to gain from Winston’s death, complained at the time of the ‘powerful and haughty adversary’ he had in Portland. In 1656 a resolution was arrived at through the mediation of Chaloner Chute‡, whereby Portland was paid £1,000 and an annuity of £200 was settled on his heir, Charles Weston* , styled Lord Weston (later 3rd earl of Portland). The changed circumstances of the Restoration appear to have inspired Portland to improve on this settlement.
In reporting Portland’s death to Ormond, Clarendon bemoaned the ‘great loss to the public’, lauding his former friend as ‘a man of great wisdom and integrity’. Doubtless Clarendon was also concerned by the loss of so close an ally at a time when pressure was mounting on him from Bennet, Bristol and other discontented forces at court and in Parliament. Portland may have been in receipt of Ormond’s proxy at the time of his demise, or anticipating receiving it. This appears to be the implication of a letter from Clarendon to Ormond recommending that he convey the proxy to John Egerton, 2nd earl of Bridgwater instead.
At the time of his death Portland had managed to do little to restore the family’s fortunes. His widow was able to rely on a crown pension of £1,000 for her maintenance, but a few years after her husband’s death she was one of a number of notables to fall prey to highway robbery; she also had plate worth £300 stolen from her some years after that.
