ROBARTES, Charles Bodvile (1660-1723)

Inheritance and marriage

As second son of the 1st earl of Radnor’s heir, Charles Bodvile Robartes was originally expected to inherit the Welsh estates of his maternal grandfather, Colonel Bodvile, but the death of his elder brother, John Robartes, in 1674 brought him the additional expectation of an annual income of £7,000 and ultimately the earldom of Radnor. Little is known of his education. His father and uncles attended Felsted School and Christ’s College, Cambridge, but his own early tutoring appears to have been handled under his maternal grandfather’s auspices. CSP Dom. 1663–4, p. 450. While still an infant, Robartes was the subject of a lawsuit between his parents (on his behalf) and members of the Wynn family over Colonel Bodvile’s will, a version of which his parents claimed had been counterfeited by their opponents. LJ, xi. 581–4. Although the case was settled satisfactorily for the Robartes clan, it may have been part of a later effort to reconcile the parties that led to his mother’s proposal that Robartes should marry the daughter (and sole heir) of Sir Richard Wynn^‡. NLW, Wynn of Gwydir, 2718. In the event nothing came of this, nor of the negotiations between Robartes’ father and Thomas Osborne, earl of Danby (later marquess of Carmarthen and duke of Leeds), for the hand of his younger daughter, Martha, who eventually married the Robartes’ Cornish rival, Charles Granville, styled Lord Lansdowne (later 2nd earl of Bath). Eg. 3330, f. 3.

Returned for Bossiney in 1679 on the family interest while still underage, Robartes (styled Viscount Bodmin after his father’s death) secured the county seat in the elections of February 1685 but later that year he succeeded to his grandfather’s peerage. With the earldom came nominal interest in at least two Cornish boroughs but, throughout his tenure of the peerage, Radnor faced fierce competition from a number of other families in the county, especially the Granvilles but also the Hydes and Godolphins. Problems were in evidence within his own family too, resulting from a dispute with his uncle Francis Robartes^‡ over the administration of the first earl’s will. PROB 18/17/56. The new earl was also the subject of a satire, which paired him with Hugh Cholmondeley, Lord Cholmondeley [I] (later earl of Cholmondeley), in which the author declared ‘Dogging with Radn[o]r is the blockhead’s sport’ (presumably a reference to their shared love of hounds and hunting). Bodl. ms Eng. poet. d. 152, f. 76.

Radnor sat for the first time following the summer adjournment on 9 Nov. 1685 (responding to a writ of summons dated two days before). He attended on all of the 11 days of the short session. In January 1686 his mother was granted the rare distinction of precedence as dowager countess of Radnor (as if her husband had succeeded to the title) and Radnor’s brothers and sisters were allowed precedence as sons and daughters of an earl. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iii. 92; CSP Dom. 1686–7, p. 15. Present on prorogation days on 10 May and 22 Nov. 1686 and on 15 Feb. 1687, Radnor was said, during the lull in parliamentary proceedings, to be pursuing a match with Miss Boscawen (only daughter of his Cornish neighbour Hugh Boscawen^‡) though nothing came of it. Morrice, Ent’ring Bk, iii. 186. He also established himself in a town residence at Number 6, St James’s Square.

Although he was assessed as an opponent of repeal of the Test in forecasts of January and November 1687, Radnor’s reputation among opponents of James II’s policies suffered early in the year when it was widely reported that he had failed to object to insulting language employed against the prince of Orange by Dr Charles Conquest in Wills’ coffee house. Ibid. iii. 348. Despite this, in May 1687 and again in January 1688 he was listed among the opposition, as well as being noted as being opposed to repeal in a further list compiled around the same time. That summer, Radnor was included among the list of sureties for the Seven Bishops. Bodl. Tanner 28, f. 76; Bodl. Carte 76, f. 28. He also stood bail for Walter Vincent^‡, who had been indicted for the murder of the son of Sr Peter Killigrew^‡. Ellis Corresp. ii. 15. It was about this time that he at last secured a match with Elizabeth Cutler, daughter of the notoriously wealthy and miserly London merchant Sir John Cutler, though it was said that Cutler was dissatisfied with his daughter’s new husband. TNA, SP 105/59, ff. 4–5.

Having aligned himself consistently with the opponents of James II’s policies, at the close of November 1688 Radnor joined James Bertie, earl of Abingdon, in rallying to the prince of Orange’s forces at Exeter. Add. 34510, f. 181; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss 1, series II, box 4, folder 189. On 21 Dec. he was present at the meeting of the Lords held in the Queen’s Presence Chamber and the following day he took his seat in the House, which he continued to attend on 24 and 25 December. Kingdom without a King, 124, 158, 165.

After the Revolution: 1689-1702

Radnor returned to the House for the Convention three days after its opening, after which he was present on 41 per cent of all sitting days. On 31 Jan. 1689 he voted in favour of inserting the words declaring the prince and princess of Orange king and queen in a division in a committee of the whole, and registered his dissent at the resolution not to do so. Four days later he again voted to follow the Commons’ lead in employing the term ‘abdicated’. He was then appointed one of the managers of two conferences held on 4 and 5 Feb. to draw up reasons why the Lords would not concur with the lower House. On 6 Feb. he again voted in favour of declaring the throne vacant. Radnor’s activities in the House appear to have declined after this early flurry, but on 27 July he acted as one of the tellers for the division whether to hold a conference to consider the bill for reversing the perjury judgments against Titus Oates. On 30 July he voted against adhering to the Lords’ amendments to the bill and then subscribed the protest at the resolution to insist on the alterations.

In advance of the new session, Radnor responded to a request to provide a self-assessment of his personal estate, which was liable to a tax of 12d. in the pound according to the terms of the act for a general aid to their majesties, by declaring that he had ‘no personal estate liable to an assessment by virtue of this act’. He nevertheless protested even so that he ‘should be very glad for the king’s sake as well as my own to pay as much of this tax as any man in England’. Chatsworth, Halifax collection, B87. He returned to the House for the second session on 19 Oct. 1689 but was then excused at a call on 28 October. He resumed his seat two days later and on 7 Jan. 1690 the House read for the first time a bill enabling Radnor to make a jointure for his countess. The bill passed its third reading on 17 Jan. and was enacted at the close of the session ten days afterwards. In a list compiled by the marquess of Carmarthen (as Danby had become) between October 1689 and February 1690, Radnor was classed as an opponent of the court.

In the March general election, Radnor was able to employ his interest at Bossiney to ensure the return of his kinsman Samuel Travers^‡. Sir Bevill Granville^‡ secured a seat at Lostwithiel, possibly as the result of an electoral pact between Radnor and John Granville, earl of Bath. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 73, 88. Radnor took his seat in the new Parliament on 20 Mar. 1690 (after which he was present on 61 per cent of all sitting days) but he appears not to have been especially active during the session. He took his place in the second session on 6 Oct. 1690 (thereafter attending for 55 per cent of all sitting days) and three days later was added to all the standing committees. On 6 Oct. he voted against the discharge of James Cecil, 4th earl of Salisbury, and Henry Mordaunt, 2nd earl of Peterborough, from their imprisonmnet in the Tower. The following month he braved ‘tempestuous’ conditions to be present at the committee hearing the petition of Robert Harley, later earl of Oxford, to overturn the election of Sir Rowland Gwynne^‡ for New Radnor Boroughs. HMC Portland, iii. 451. Radnor presumably had a general interest in who was returned for a Welsh constituency but he may have been particularly interested on Harley’s behalf: Harley had previously sat for a Cornish borough on the Boscawen interest and was a distant relation.

Present on the two prorogation days of 28 Apr. and 26 May 1691, Radnor took his seat in the third session on 27 Oct. 1691 (after which he attended on just under half of all sitting days). On 25 Jan. 1692 he was entrusted with the proxy of Edward Villiers, Viscount Villiers (later earl of Jersey), which was vacated on Villiers’ return to the House on 8 February. Nominated one of the managers of the conferences held to consider the public accounts bill on 5, 8 and 10 Feb., on 16 Feb. Radnor acted as teller in two divisions concerning the use of proxies during proceedings on the divorce bill of Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk. He then subscribed the protest when the resolution to employ proxies was defeated. On 23 Feb. he acted as teller once more, on this occasion on behalf of those opposed to the resolution to make an entry in the Journal on passing a clause in the poll bill.

Following the close of the session, Radnor was one of a number of Cornish notables mentioned as having invested a considerable sum of money (reports suggested that they had raised at least £70,000) towards the building of two ships for trade in the East Indies. Luttrell, Brief Relation, ii. 375. Again diligent in attending the prorogations of 25 May, 11 July, 22 Aug. and 26 Sept. 1692, he took his seat in the new session on 4 November. Later that month inaccurate reports circulated of the death of Sir John Cutler, whose decease promised to make Lady Radnor ‘a vast fortune to my Lord’. Verney ms mic. M636/46, E. Adams to Sir R. Verney, 22 Nov. 1692. Radnor voted in favour of committing the place bill on 31 Dec. and then backed the measure’s passage on 3 Jan. 1693. Assessed by Thomas Bruce, 2nd earl of Ailesbury, as being likely to support the Norfolk divorce bill at the beginning of the year, he voted accordingly in favour of reading the bill on 2 January. At the close of the month (31 Jan.) he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to proceed with the trial of Charles Mohun, 4th Baron Mohun, and on 4 Feb. he found Mohun not guilty of murder. State Trials, xii. 1048–9. Radnor entered a further dissent on 6 Mar. at the resolution not to communicate to the Commons the information taken at the bar of the Lords and on 10 Mar. he was appointed one of the reporters of the conference considering the duchy of Cornwall bill. That month he was also suggested as a possible replacement for Bath as lord lieutenant of Cornwall. HMC Finch, v. 66.

In April 1693 reports circulated again that Radnor’s father-in-law, Sir John Cutler, was seriously sick and that he had received his son-in-law and daughter, had ‘freely’ forgiven them ‘and had settled his estate to their satisfaction’. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 76. It is unclear what the earl and countess had been forgiven for, though there had been general reports that Cutler had not approved of the match. SP 105/59, ff. 4–5. Cutler died soon after, leaving an extensive personal fortune, which common fame awarded to a greater or lesser degree to Radnor, though by the terms of the will Lady Radnor was left a bequest of just £1,000 out of an estate estimated at anything between £300,000 and £600,000. Carte 233, f. 93; HMC Portland, iii. 515; Woodhead, Rulers of London, 55; PROB 11/413 (Sir John Cutler). By the terms of a former settlement, she received £6,000 a year out of Cutler’s estates in Cambridgeshire and Yorkshire and half of his personal estate, although in the event of Lady Radnor dying without children, this was to be conveyed to Cutler’s nephew, Edmund Boulter^‡, who was named sole executor. Tanner 25, f. 34; SP 105/59, ff. 4–5; PROB 11/413. Radnor appears to have responded to his improved financial circumstances with a conspicuous display of prodigality. He laid out £10,000 to buy pictures, as well as investing in a new coach and horses costing £1,000 and linings (presumably wall coverings) for his house at a cost of a further £1,000. Add. 61455, ff. 142–3. While Radnor revelled in his good fortune, Cutler’s death earned Lady Radnor a visit by the queen in May to condole with her on her loss. The following month Radnor was involved in a chancery suit with John West, 6th Baron De la Warr, over a mortgage held by Cutler. The case was settled in Radnor’s favour. Verney ms mic. M636/46, J. to Sir R. Verney, 29 June 1693; Add. 75366, R. Harley to Halifax, 1 July 1693; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iii. 125–6.

Radnor took his seat in the new session on 7 Nov. 1693 (after which he was present on a third of all sitting days). Although marked present on the attendance list that day, he was excused at a call on 14 November; he returned to his place four days later. The same month, Radnor’s brother, Russell Robartes, replaced Cutler at Bodmin, while Radnor attempted to make the most of his new-found wealth by offering to raise a regiment of horse for the king’s service out of his own pocket. CSP Dom. 1693, p. 412. His relocation to No. 7 St James’s Square the following year (1694) may have been indicative of his greater affluence at this time, though he almost immediately mortgaged the property to Francis Brudenell, Lord Brudenell (d.1698), heir of Robert Brudenell, 2nd earl of Cardigan, for £2,500 to enable him to pay off a debt owing to Brudenell’s sister, Lady Newburgh. Survey of London, xxix. 112.

Having taken his seat in the new session on 22 Nov. 1694 (after which he was present on 52 per cent of all sitting days), Radnor acted as teller on 25 Jan. 1695 for the division over whether to appoint a day for the consideration of the establishment of the Bank of England: the motion was rejected. On 11 Mar. the House ordered that Dennis Russell should be attached for filing declarations of ejectment on some of Radnor’s tenants, contrary to privilege. Appointed custos rotulorum of Cornwall that year, in the October elections Radnor made the most of his new office to impose his will on those areas in the county where he had greatest interest. Nicholas Glynn^‡ determined not to contest the seat at Bodmin on the grounds that ‘Lord Radnor treats at an extravagant rate and the good liquor has more force than any other consideration.’ HP Commons 1690-1715, ii. 72. Such lavish entertainment ensured the return of Russell Robartes, while Radnor’s brother-in-law, George Booth^‡, benefited from his patronage at Bossiney. Radnor took his seat in the new Parliament on 22 Nov. 1695, after which he was present on a third of all sitting days. In April 1696 he was appointed lord lieutenant of Cornwall, an acknowledgment of his developing interest in the area but also probably a determined effort on the part of the court to wrest control from the Granvilles. HEHL, HM 30659 (67), newsletter, 18 Apr. 1696; Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 45. The same month he undertook a minor diplomatic task when he was deputed to receive the Venetian ambassadors at Greenwich. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 50.

Radnor took his seat in the second session on 26 Oct. 1696 and on 23 Dec. he voted in favour of passing the bill to attaint Sir John Fenwick^‡. Shortly after, personal tragedy intervened, when in January 1697 he suffered the loss of his countess. Verney ms mic. M636/49, Sir J. Verney to W. Coleman, 14 Jan. 1697. This presumably explains his absence from the House throughout January and for the greater part of February 1697, though he covered this by registering his proxy with Charles Gerard, 2nd earl of Macclesfield. The proxy was vacated by Radnor’s return to the House on 22 February. Aside from any personal feelings of loss, Radnor suffered a very definite financial reversal with his wife’s death, as her annuity from the Cutler lands descended to her cousin Edmund Boulter rather than to her husband; this presumably explains Radnor’s later dependence on court handouts. It was also no doubt indicative of his increasing financial difficulties that by May 1705 he was said to have been two years behind in his interest payments to John Ashburnham, Baron Ashburnham. E. Suss. RO, ASH 845, Lord Ashburnham to T. Gibson, 7 May 1705. Rumours that Radnor was to marry again (later reports mentioned him in connection with one of the daughters of Anthony Grey, 11th earl of Kent) proved unfounded and he remained a widower for the rest of his life. Carte 228, f. 288.

Radnor returned to the House at the opening of the 3rd session on 3 Dec. (after which he was present on 43 per cent of all sitting days). Whatever his diminished financial condition may have been, he remained influential at court as a report of 30 Dec. made plain. The message, sent by John Methuen^‡ to Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I], warned against leaving out Radnor’s uncle, Francis Robartes^‡, from his post of commissioner of revenue in Ireland ‘because the king seems to stand in need of my Lord Radnor, his relation’. Add. 61653, ff. 27–30. Radnor’s interest certainly remained significant in the 1698 general election. Russell Robartes retained his seat at Bodmin, while George Booth joined Travers at Losthwithiel, forcing John Hicks^‡ into third place. Emanuel Pyper^‡, one of two contesting mayors of Liskeard, appears to have offered the town’s recordership to Radnor in an effort to acquire some political capital but Radnor rebuffed his advances and referred the matter to Jonathan Trelawny, bishop of Exeter, who held the recordership under the 1685 charter. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 84.

Radnor took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Dec. 1698 (after which he was present on half of all sitting days). That month Hicks, who had unsuccessfully contested Lostwithiel, petitioned against Booth’s return, asserting that:

a peer of this realm, of great place and trust in the said county did not only persuade and influence the said electors not to choose the petitioner, before the election, but appeared there, and recommended for burgesses George Booth and Samuel Travers esquires, for whom his lordship declared he would be answerable.

The Commons’ committee was unmoved and Hicks later withdrew his petition. Ibid. ii. 89. Radnor seems subsequently to have made little impact on the session save for being appointed one of the managers of the conference for the bill for duty on paper on 3 May.

Radnor returned to the House for the second session on 29 Nov. 1699 and on 1 Feb. 1700 he was forecast as being opposed to continuing the East India Company as a corporation. On 23 Feb. he voted against adjourning to discuss two amendments to the East India Company bill in a committee of the whole, later registering his dissent at the resolution to allow the bill to pass. In July he was marked ‘x’ on a list of Whig lords, possibly an indication of his adherence to the Junto at that time.

Although Radnor’s brother-in-law, Booth, was unsuccessful in the first election of 1701, he was able to regain his seat at Lostwithiel shortly after, following the death of John Buller^‡. Russell Robartes was again returned for Bodmin and Francis Robartes for Bossiney. Radnor took his seat in the new Parliament on 10 Feb. 1701 and the following month the House ordered that Radnor’s counsel should be heard during the consideration of the bill for regulating the king’s bench and Fleet prisons, against which Radnor had entered an objection, having a financial interest in the institutions. HEHL, HM 30659 (83), newsletter, 27 Mar. 1701. Radnor acted as one of the tellers in a vote on adjourning the House on 15 May. The following month he demonstrated his Junto loyalties by voting in favour of acquitting John Somers, Baron Somers, on 17 June. Six days later he also voted in favour of throwing out the charges laid against Somers’ colleague, Edward Russell, earl of Orford.

Present on the prorogation day of 6 Nov. 1701, Radnor continued his gradual accretion of Cornish offices when he succeeded Bath as lord warden of the stannaries that month – a position worth £1,500 a year. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 107, 110. At the close of the month he travelled to Cornwall ‘to support his majesty’s interest’ and was no doubt relieved to witness the return once more of his brother Russell and brother-in-law Booth. CSP Dom. 1700–2, p. 453. He returned to London in time to take his seat in the new Parliament on 30 Dec. (after which he was present on 78 per cent of all sitting days). The following month he was admitted to the Privy Council. Despite his recent promotions within Cornwall, Radnor’s continuing difficulties in establishing his authority in the county were revealed when the members of Parliament for Cornwall presented the king with an address from the county’s miners in January 1702 but pointedly omitted Radnor, ‘thereby representing the small interest his lordship has amongst them’. Bath mss at Longleat, Thynne pprs. 44, f. 151.

Radnor may have been slighted in his locality but he was active in Parliament during the session. On 22 Jan. the House appointed him, together with Richard Lumley, earl of Scarbrough, to wait on the king to recommend Colonel Leighton for some mark of favour; four days later (26 Jan.) Radnor reported the king’s positive response to the Lords’ address. On 6 and 10 Feb. 1702 he was appointed one of the reporters of a conference concerning the bill for attainting the Pretender and on 21 Feb. he acted as one of the tellers on a division whether to communicate an instruction to the committee of the whole appointed to consider the Succession bill. Two days later he told again in a division over the inclusion of additional text within the Succession bill and on 8 Mar. he was one of the managers of the conference held to mark the death of William III and accession of Queen Anne. On 4 May he was one of six peers appointed to wait on the new queen and to lay before her a report on whether papers found in her predecessor’s closet had contained information prejudicial to her succession.

The Reign of Anne

The accession of Anne proved unfavourable for Radnor. Although Thomas Thynne, Viscount Weymouth, bemoaned the fact that Radnor had not been put out of his lieutenancy in June, he soon had his wish when Radnor was displaced in favour of John Granville, later Baron Granville of Potheridge. Add. 29588, f. 47; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 182. Radnor’s declining influence was perhaps reflected in his failure to succeed Jonathan Rashleigh^‡ as recorder of Fowey in September. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 79. His interest at Bodmin was also squeezed in the general election, although his uncle, Francis Robartes, secured one of the seats after John Grobham Howe^‡ decided to sit for Gloucestershire instead. Only at Lostwithiel did the Robartes interest appear unaffected where Russell Robartes was returned once more.

Radnor took his seat in the new Parliament on 21 Oct. 1702. On 1 Jan. 1703 he was estimated by Daniel Finch, 2nd earl of Nottingham, to be opposed to the bill for preventing occasional conformity and on 16 Jan. he voted in favour of adhering to the Lords’ amendment to the penalty clause. Three days later he subscribed the protest at the resolution not to agree with the committee in leaving out a clause allowing Prince George, of Denmark, duke of Cumberland, to serve as a member of the Privy Council in the bill for settling a revenue on the prince in the event of his surviving the queen. Two days later, having failed to put his name to the protest of 20 Jan. objecting to the passing of the prince’s bill, Radnor moved that any lords who wished to do so might still be permitted to subscribe the protest. The motion was adopted. He also took the opportunity of withdrawing his objection to the passing of the bill for regulating king’s bench prison. Nicolson, London Diaries, 182–3.

Radnor’s declining interest may have contributed to a delay that summer in confirming his brother, Russell Robartes, as one of the grooms of the bedchamber to Prince George. Robartes appealed to Harley to find out the cause of the delay, insisting that his brother ‘was mightily surprised that there should now be any hesitation since he, as well as the whole town, took it for granted the thing was done and determined’. HMC Portland, iv. 64. In November, Radnor was forecast by Charles Spencer, 3rd earl of Sunderland, in two assessments as being likely to oppose the bill for preventing occasional conformity. Having taken his seat in the new session on 16 Nov. he voted accordingly to reject the bill in the divisions held on 14 December. Prior to this, on 29 Nov., he attended to his own concerns by submitting a petition for a lease on Tintagel. Radnor was present at a large gathering hosted by Sunderland in St James’s Square on 13 Feb. 1704, where discourse centred on the Scotch Plot then being debated by the Lords. He returned to the House for the third session on 20 Nov. 1704 (after which he was present on 42 per cent of all sitting days) and on 27 Feb. 1705 he was appointed to the committee established to prepare heads of a conference with the Commons concerning the Ailesbury men.

Radnor was noted as a supporter of the Hanoverian succession in April 1705. In the general election that summer, his interest held firm at Bodmin and Lostwithiel and on 23 Aug. he attended the service of thanksgiving held at St Paul’s to mark the latest victory over the French. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 585. He appears to have played little part in Parliament from the winter of 1705 until November 1707. Noted missing at a call of the House on 12 Nov. 1705, having taken his seat on 23 Nov. he attended just 11 days of the 96-day session. He managed to stir himself to appear on 17 days in the following session (December 1706–April 1707), during which he introduced Henry Howard, styled Lord Walden, as earl of Bindon and his old comrade Cholmondeley as earl of Cholmondeley. He was also one of the peers present at a hearing in the court of delegates in February. LPL, ms 1770 (Wake diary), f. 36. He was then present on just one day of the brief session of April 1707. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 6 Nov. 1707, after which his attendance improved and he was present on just over 30 per cent of all sitting days. On 17 Nov. he was appointed to the committee considering the petition of his mother, the dowager countess, over her suit with Sir Richard Child^‡. On 7 Feb. 1708 he subscribed the protest at the resolution to pass the bill improving the Union and two days later petitioned to bring in a bill for vesting some of his estates in trustees to be sold to ease his burden of debt. Leave was granted on 25 February. On 12 Mar. he chaired the committee drawing up an address to be presented to the queen. Nicolson, London Diaries, 462.

Following the session’s close, Radnor was marked a Whig in an assessment of peers’ allegiances. In the Cornish elections he was active once again in promoting his family’s interest, but, although the poll at Lostwithiel was contested by two of Radnor’s kinsmen, neither was successful there. The death of one of the victorious candidates, James Kendall^‡, shortly after once more brought to the fore the rivalry between the Robartes and Granville clans. HMC Portland, iv. 495. Following petitions lodged by Francis and Russell Robartes in 1709, both Lostwithiel seats were awarded to Radnor’s relatives, though Russell Robartes chose to sit for Bodmin, where he had also been returned. HP Commons, 1690–1715, ii. 72, 88, 89.

Radnor took his seat in the new Parliament on 3 Dec. 1708. On 21 Jan. 1709 he voted in favour of permitting Scots peers with British titles to vote in the elections for Scots representative peers. He returned to the House for the following session on 15 Nov. 1709 (after which he was present on 36 per cent of all sitting days) and on 20 Mar. 1710 he found Henry Sacheverell guilty of high crimes and misdemeanours.

Radnor’s party loyalties appear to have been drifting by the autumn of that year. Financial woes seem to have been at the root of his apostasy. In September Jonathan Swift recorded spending an hour and a half with him at a coffee house talking ‘treason heartily against the Whigs, their baseness and ingratitude’. Jnl. to Stella ed. Williams, i. 13. Despite this, Robert Harley still thought Radnor doubtful in an assessment of October 1710. Radnor persisted in seeking Harley’s interest with the queen. The following month, a further letter from Radnor to Harley was annotated ‘£400’ in Harley’s hand, presumably a note of the pension that Harley felt sufficient to secure Radnor’s support. Add. 70255, Radnor to Harley, 12 Oct. and 10 Nov. 1710.

Realignment with the Harley regime failed to solve all of Radnor’s problems. In the general election of October 1710, both seats at Bodmin went to his kinsmen but he appears by then to have lost the greater part of his interest at Bossiney. His attendance of the House also remained uneven. He took his seat in the new Parliament on 27 Nov. 1710 but was then present on just 29 per cent of all sitting days. In May 1711, the death of Laurence Hyde, earl of Rochester, offered further cause for infighting in Cornwall as Radnor, Granville and John Carteret, 2nd Baron Carteret (later Earl Granville), all vied with each other for the lieutenancy. George Granville, later Baron Lansdown, was uncompromising in his efforts to prevent Radnor’s nomination, insisting in a letter to Harley that ‘you may depend upon it that nothing can be more prejudicial to you than the appointment of Lord Radnor as Lord Lieutenant of Cornwall’. HMC Portland, iv. 493. In the event all were disappointed and, despite Radnor’s reported ‘very earnest applications’ for the office, the vacant place went to Rochester’s heir. Add. 70027, ff. 188–9.

Radnor was compelled to appeal to Oxford (as Harley had become) for payment of his pension on several occasions during the summer of 1711. Add. 70255, Radnor to Oxford, 7, 28 Aug., 26 Sept. 1711. In November, still unsatisfied, he resorted to a further begging letter seeking what appears to have been a very trifling sum and underlining that:

If I had not a very extraordinary and pressing occasion, depend on it my dear lord, I would not ask it. It is but seven, and if your lordship would send it me tomorrow, ’twill double the obligation, because I am engaged to make a payment on Saturday next, which I know not how to do without your lordship’s assistance. Add. 70255, Radnor to Oxford, 8 Nov. 1711.

Oxford listed Radnor among those peers to be canvassed before the ‘No Peace without Spain’ motion at the beginning of December. Having taken his seat in the new session on 7 Dec., Radnor joined a number of pensioners and office-holders abandoning the ministry to vote in favour of the motion. On 19 Dec. he was listed (with a query) as a possible supporter of permitting James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S], to take his seat in the Lords as duke of Brandon, but he was absent from the vote on the following day. Indeed, the query probably relates to his absence from the House until after the Christmas recess.On 29 Dec. Oxford again noted Radnor as someone to be contacted during the recess, and on the following day, Swift spent three hours with Radnor in an effort ‘to bring him over to us’. As a result of his endeavours Swift thought Radnor might now ‘be tractable; but he is a scoundrel, and though I said I only talked for my love to him, I told a lie; for I did not care if he were hanged’.

For all Swift’s blandishments, Radnor failed to attend the House on 2 Jan. 1712 when the ministry’s motion to adjourn was carried by the force of Oxford’s dozen new peers, leaving Swift to muse wistfully that he hoped he had ‘cured him’. Jnl. to Stella ii. 451–2, 454. A list of 15 Jan. compiled by Bothmer for the Hanoverian court noted Radnor (among other poor lords) as likely to require a pension of £1,000 to secure his loyalty. On 28 May he voted with the other members of the ministry in opposing calls for an address to the queen to overturn the orders preventing James Butler, 2nd duke of Ormond, from engaging the French. Evidently, Swift remained unconvinced of Radnor’s resilience, however, and Radnor may have been the intended recipient of his pamphlet of that year, Some Reasons to Prove, That no person is obliged by his Principles, as a Whig, to oppose Her Majesty or her Present Ministry. J. Swift, English Political Writings 1711–14 ed. Goldgar and Gadd, 17–18.

Present on eight prorogation days between July 1712 and March 1713, in February 1713 Radnor once more resorted to writing to Oxford in an effort to secure his pension, which he claimed had fallen short by £600 or £700. Add. 70255, Radnor to Oxford, 2 Feb. 1713. In a forecast of the following month, and no doubt as a result of Radnor’s dissatisfaction, Swift and Oxford both thought Radnor would oppose the ministry in the forthcoming session. Radnor took his seat in the House on 21 Apr. (after which he was present on 69 per cent of all sitting days) and on 13 June Oxford assessed that he would oppose the passage of the French commercial treaty.

Despite Radnor’s apparent refusal to toe the ministry line, he continued to feature in lists of peers requiring handouts. Following the end of the 1713 session he was again included among a list of poor lords to be sent to the Elector (later George I) with a further recommendation for a £1,000 pension (which was later granted him by the new regime). Add. 61604, ff. 5–10. It seems clear that Radnor was by now extremely dependent on such court largesse, having sold at least two of the estates he had inherited from his wife. Russell Robartes was scathing about his brother’s mismanagement of his inheritance and objected to the sale of the estate at Wimpole to John Holles, duke of Newcastle. VCH Cambs. v. 243, 265; HMC Portland, v. 341.

Radnor’s uncle, Francis, was again returned for Bodmin in the election of September 1713. Perhaps indicative of the tensions between the brothers at that time, Russell Robartes determined not to stand. Radnor took his seat in the new Parliament on 16 Feb. 1714, but attended on just two days before absenting himself for the rest of the month. On 1 Mar. he registered his proxy with William Cowper, Baron Cowper, which was vacated by his resumption of his place on 17 Mar. (following which he attended on a further 43 days in the session). Forecast as being opposed to the Schism bill by Nottingham at the end of May or beginning of June, on 15 June Radnor subscribed the protest at the resolution to pass the measure. Despite disagreeing on this, the following month Radnor registered his proxy with Nottingham (which was vacated by the close of the session).

Radnor attended six days of the brief 15-day session that met in the wake of the queen’s death. The Hanoverian accession offered him some hopes of greater fortune and in November he was reappointed to the lord lieutenancy of Cornwall. The following month he was granted the office of treasurer of the chamber, which he held until 1720. Details of the final stage of his career will be dealt with in the next part of this work. Radnor sat for the last time on 27 May 1723 and died just over two months later at Shaw in Berkshire. In the absence of any offspring, the peerage descended to his nephew, Henry Robartes* [997], son of Russell Robartes, who succeeded as 3rd earl of Radnor. Radnor’s sole executor and principal beneficiary was his sister, Lady Essex Robartes.