SAVAGE, Richard (c. 1654-1712)

Early life 1654-94

As a young man, Savage had an unsavoury reputation. Both he and his older brother were members of a drunken gang who were responsible for killing a passerby in London in 1674 and required a royal pardon to escape a trial for murder at the Old Bailey. Richard Savage’s pardon was renewed and extended ‘to all other felonies whatsoever’ probably in order to cover him against a lesser charge of stabbing. CSP Dom. 1673-5, pp. 457, 481; CTB, iv. 650. His father had already had to use his influence to extricate him from the consequences of an earlier ‘rencounter’ in Ireland. CSP Dom. Addenda, 1660-70, p. 626. It seems scarcely surprising that Savage was reputed to have been called ‘Tyburn Dick’ as a young man.

Rivers was also a noted rake and is known to have fathered at least three illegitimate children. His mistresses included Elizabeth, daughter of the exclusionist, Sir Peter Colleton^‡, mother of his daughter Bessy, and Ann, estranged wife of Charles Gerard, 2nd earl of Macclesfield, with whom he had two children, both of whom are believed to have died young. Richard Savage the poet claimed to be one of these children but there is no evidence to support the assertion.

Richard Savage unexpectedly became heir to his father’s earldom on the death of his older brother, Thomas, in October 1679. Bodl. Carte 228, f. 89. Shortly before that he had married Penelope Downes, said to own lands and reversionary leases with a capital value of £30,000-£40,000; their only child, Elizabeth, was born in or about 1685. C9/345/45. Nothing has been discovered about the circumstances of his second marriage.

In 1681 Savage, now styled Viscount Colchester, was returned as Member for Wigan, possibly as a late substitute for his older brother. On good terms with Stanleys, his election owed a great deal to the support of William Richard George Stanley, 9th earl of Derby. He was closely associated with James Scott, duke of Monmouth, and was a prominent member of his entourage during Monmouth’s progress through the north-west in 1682. CSP Dom. 1682, pp. 387, 390, 397. Nevertheless, when James II came to the throne he was anxious to curry favour with the crown, in the vain hope of being returned as knight of the shire for Lancashire. JRL, Legh of Lyme mss, Colchester to R. Legh, 14 Feb 1685. He was also rejected as a candidate for Preston. When Monmouth’s opposition broke out into open rebellion in 1685, he volunteered his services on behalf of the crown.

His reconciliation with the crown was short-lived. Despite his family’s recent religious history, Colchester was extremely sympathetic to Dissent and may have had strong anti-Catholic prejudices. Alienated by James II’s pro-Catholic policies, he was the first English nobleman to defect to William III in 1688. It was presumably this that attracted Macky’s accolade of being ‘always a lover of the constitution of his country’. Macky Mems. 60. James II never forgave him and pointedly excluded him from the general pardon that he offered in 1692. Returned to the Commons as Member for Liverpool in 1689, he was clearly and prominently identified with the Whigs. His political circle was also a social one: the Rye House plotter, Ford Grey, earl of Tankerville, stood godfather to his illegitimate daughter Bessy in 1699, and, as will be seen, he named senior political allies as executors and trustees of his estates. C9/342/25. He exercised direct electoral influence in Cheshire and may also have exercised indirect influence over several Members of the Commons. He was thought to be in a position to assist the career of Thomas Legh^‡, who was related to the Cholmondeleys, and he was on friendly terms with William Seymour^‡. It seems likely too that he had something of a following amongst the military men in the Commons: he certainly exercised considerable influence over Thomas Erle^‡ who accompanied him to Spain as his second in command and who clearly shared Rivers’ low opinion of Henri de Massue de Ruvigny, earl of Galway [I].

Parliamentary career: 1694-1707

After inheriting the earldom in 1694, Rivers’ financial position was considerably better than that of his father, so much so that he was in a position to lend rather than to borrow. His debtors included his Cheshire neighbour, the suspected Jacobite, Sir Thomas Stanley of Alderley, Cheshire. C9/261/10. He was also able to buy additional lands for £19,000 and was rewarded by William III with a grant of the manor of Higham Ferrers. HMC Lords, vi. 315-16; CTB, x. 936. Like his father he became involved in a number of legal actions relating to his estates, including the continuing series of suits concerning his older brother’s marriage settlement. The settlement directed that these lands be used to secure a £10,000 portion for his niece, Lady Charlotte Catherine Savage, who died in 1686. Unfortunately for Rivers the courts (including the House of Lords) interpreted the settlement to mean that the portion had to be paid even though she died underage and unmarried. Case of the Rt. Hon Thomas Earl Rivers upon his Appeal [n.d.]; Case of William now Earl Derby [n.d.]. Rivers’ sister-in-law, the dowager Lady Colchester and her brother, the 9th earl of Derby, and his son James Stanley, (later 10th earl of Derby), took possession of the lands. The 10th earl of Derby was still in possession in 1705, claiming that rents and profits since 1679 had not been sufficient to fulfil the terms of the trust. The two families had once been firm allies but Rivers became convinced that the Stanleys were attempting to defraud him. C9/3307/85; C9/183/63.

After his accession to the peerage, Rivers became a prominent and active member of the House of Lords, acting as teller in a number of divisions and managing several conferences with the Commons. His party allegiances were firmly with the Junto Whigs until he joined forces with Robert Harley, the future earl of Oxford, in or about 1709-10. His friendship with William III facilitated a successful military career, but he was nevertheless able to maintain his attendance at a relatively high level, partly because many of the European campaigns in which he was involved were fought during the summer months when Parliament was less likely to be sitting. Rivers’ major political influence ought to have been in Cheshire where he had substantial landholdings. However, the demands of his military career and of attendance at the House of Lords meant that his duties as lord lieutenant and custos rotulorum of Cheshire had largely to be devolved to his deputy lieutenants. This coupled with political and personal divisions in the leadership of the county imposed considerable limitations on his electoral influence. In 1695, for example, he was unable to secure sufficient support for his proposed candidate, the courtier, George Cholmondeley^‡. He continued to maintain an interest in the electoral politics of Lancashire, especially of Wigan and Liverpool. In Liverpool, Rivers was associated with the supporters of the ‘old charter’, and in Wigan he relied on his alliance with Sir Roger Bradshaigh^‡. Sir Roger’s younger brother, Henry Bradshaigh^‡ was his aide-de-camp in Spain in 1706 and was said to be ‘under Lord Rivers’ power’ in August 1710. HMC Portland, iv. 579. In both these constituencies as in the wider county contests, he was increasingly allied with the interests of James Hamilton, 4th duke of Hamilton [S] and against those of the 10th earl of Derby.

Rivers took his seat in the House of Lords at the first available opportunity and as he was then present for nearly 54 per cent of the 1694-5 session and was regularly named to committees. On 14 Dec. 1694 he was appointed to the committee to draw an address to the crown against the establishment of the Scots East India Company, a subject in which as an adventurer in the English East India Company, he had a considerable personal interest. BL, OIOC, HOME misc/2, 83. On 21 Jan. 1695 he acted as teller in the division in a committee of the whole on the treason trial’s bill, acting for those against including the amended clauses.

The general election of 1695 saw a successful attempt to dissuade Rivers from using his influence in Essex to support the prospective candidature of Philip Savage for Colchester. Philip Savage, chancellor of the exchequer in Ireland, had consistently opposed the policies there of the lord deputy Henry Capell, Baron Capell. Rivers was present on nearly 41 per cent of sitting days of the first (1695-6) session of the new Parliament. On 26 Feb. 1696 in the aftermath of the Assassination Plot it was Rivers who proposed that the wording of the Association should not only acknowledge William III as rightful king but that it should explicitly declare that neither James II nor the his son had any right to the crown. Add. 17677 QQ, ff. 297-9. Despite his absence from the county, he was also active in directing measures to be taken against suspected Jacobites in Cheshire. Add. 36913, ff. 213, 217, 235, 248, 276, 282. He was again a teller in a division of a committee of the whole on 31 Mar. 1696 concerning a clause to be added to the bill for the recoinage.

Rivers was present on 45 per cent of sitting days during the 1696-7 session and was regularly named to committees. Not surprisingly, given his close relationship with, and admiration of, the king, on 23 Dec. he voted in favour of the bill to attaint Sir John Fenwick^‡. In the spring of 1698 his relationship with Lady Macclesfield led her husband to apply to Parliament for a divorce, an action which not only produced evidence that was sensational in itself, but which also raised controversial procedural issues concerning the relationship between the House of Lords and both the secular and ecclesiastical courts. Rivers appears to have played no part in the proceedings, other than as a figure of scandal. Luttrell, Brief Relation, iv. 350-1. On 10 Mar. the proxy of Robert Sutton* , 2nd Baron Lexinton, was registered in his favour, presumably for use in the forthcoming vote concerning the financier, Charles Duncombe^‡. On 15 Mar. Rivers voted in favour of committing the bill against Duncombe and entered a dissent when the bill was lost. On 1 July he was a teller for the second reading of the East Indies trade bill.

During the 1698-9 session Rivers’ attendance rose to 61 per cent and he was again regularly named to committees. In February 1699 his privileged position as a close friend of the king was underlined when his troop of horse guards was one of the few that escaped the general disbandment of the army. Ibid. 487. On 9 Feb. 1699 the House was informed that he, Charles Mordaunt* , 3rd earl of Peterborough, and Edward Russell, earl of Orford, had been involved in a heated quarrel, the cause of which appears to have been remarks by which Peterborough had accused Orford of being a coward and of ‘something very gross’. Vernon-Shrewsbury Letters, ii. 264. The House was forced to intervene to prevent a duel. Although Peterborough and Rivers are both listed in the attendance list for that day, the entry in the Journal makes it clear that they were not in the chamber when the issue was raised and had to be sent for. On 23 Mar. he was a teller in the division on whether to resume the House when the committee of the whole considered Desbrow’s bill.

The next (1699-1700) session saw his attendance rise to 68 per cent with concomitant nominations to a variety of committees. On 23 Jan. 1700 he entered a protest against the resolution to reverse the judgment in Williamson v. the Crown, a decision that depended on a complex legal technicality concerning the jurisdiction of the court of exchequer and its role as the successor to the dissolved Court of Augmentations. On 8 Feb. he was a teller in the division for those opposed to the putting of the question that the Scots colony at Darien was inconsistent with the welfare of the English plantation trade. On 23 Feb. he opposed the establishment of the committee of the whole to debate amendments to the bill for the continuation of the East India Company. On 4 Apr. he told in the division on the second reading of the land tax bill. On 10 Apr. he was again teller for the division on a free conference on the land tax bill. Somewhat surprisingly, on 12 Mar. he entered a dissent to the passage of the divorce bill promoted by the Whig Henry Howard, 7th duke of Norfolk. Most of the protesters were high Anglican Tories; there is no evidence from which Rivers’ motivation can be deduced, other than the distinct but unproven possibility that he was influenced by his friendship with her cousin Peterborough. A list of peers drawn up after the end of the session marked him as a supporter of the Junto.

During the 1701 session Rivers was present on 69 per cent of sitting days. On 16 Apr. 1701 he acted as a teller in the division on the question in favour of the creation of a committee to draw up an address requesting that the crown should not pass any censure on the impeached Whig lords until their trials. On 3 June he was again a teller for a procedural issue relating to the impeachments in favour of the Lords’ amendment to their proposed message to the Commons insisting on their ability to determine limits to the time allowed to the Commons to make particular rather than general charges. On 10 June he told on the resolution to adjourn the House rather than discuss the supply bill. On 17 June he acted as teller in several divisions concerning the trial of John Somers, Baron Somers, before voting to acquit him. On 19 June he told in the division on appointing a date for the third reading of the supply bill, and on 21 June he was teller in the division, subsequently abandoned, for an address to the crown for a commission of review concerning the marriage of Charles Howard, 4th Baron Howard of Escrick and Lady Inchiquin. On 23 June he voted for the acquittal of Orford.

During the election of December 1701, Rivers predictably put his influence in Cheshire at the disposal of the Whig candidates, but country suspicions of their court connections fuelled a fierce contest and resulted in an extremely narrow Whig victory. Rivers’ attendance fell to 41 per cent during the 1701-2 session. He was again a teller in several divisions. On 8 Mar. 1702 he was named as one of the managers of the conference with the Commons on the death of William III and the accession of Anne; on 18 and 20 May he was similarly named to manage the conferences to discuss ways of preventing all correspondence with France and Spain.

In 1702 the Cheshire commission of the peace was remodelled to secure a Tory majority and this, together with continuing country concerns and Rivers’ inability to exert sufficient influence over the voting intentions of his tenants, was a major factor in the Tory victory at the 1702 election. The 1702-3 session saw him present on 54 per cent of sitting days. During the course of the session Daniel Finch, earl of Nottingham, correctly forecast that he would vote against the occasional conformity bill and during January 1703 he told in several of the divisions concerning the bill. On 19 Jan. 1703 his opposition to attempts to ban occasional conformity twinned with his suspicion of the creation of precedents for tacking led him to dissent to the clause in the bill to settle a revenue on Prince George, of Denmark, duke of Cumberland. Nicholson London Diaries, 166. On 22 Feb. he acted as a teller on the division to commit the bill for imposing a qualification on Members of the Commons

Initially the king’s death made little difference to Rivers’ military career. His commission as lieutenant general was renewed and he continued to serve under John Churchill, Marlborough, but in 1702 he was replaced as lord lieutenant by Hugh Cholmondeley, Baron (later earl) Cholmondeley in the English peerage and also Viscount Cholmondeley [I]. In March 1703, in a move that he later claimed had been forced by Marlborough, he sold his colonelcy to Charles Butler, Baron Butler of Weston (better known as earl of Arran [I]) and his regiment of horse to Colonel William Cadogan^†, the future Earl Cadogan. Add. 70075, newsletter, 13 Feb. 1703; Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 272; Add. 61395, f. 41. He probably did so in expectation of further preferment but his request for the command of troops in Portugal was denied by the duumvirs. Perhaps as a result his attendance during the 1703-4 session was exceptionally high at just over 81 per cent. In November and December 1703 he was again forecast as an opponent of the occasional conformity bill. On 1 Mar. 1704 he told against including the words, ‘But that he may have no hopes given him of pardon, without such confession’ in the address to the crown concerning a pardon for James Boucher in return for his evidence about Jacobite plotting. He was again a teller on 24 Mar. for those wishing to put the question of whether the information contained in the examination of Sir John Maclean was imperfect and entered a protest against the failure to do so.

Changes in the ministry led to further remodellings of the Cheshire commission of the peace in 1704 and to the restoration of a large number of Whig justices. During the following (1704-5) session Rivers’ attendance fell back to 56 per cent. He held the proxies of Hugh Willoughby, 11th Baron Willoughby of Parham, for the whole of the session and also of George Booth, 2nd earl of Warrington, from 28 Nov. to 2 Jan. 1705. He was named as one of the managers of the conferences held with the Commons on the case of Ashby v. White on 27 and 28 Feb. and again on 7 Mar. 1705. He was also a manager for a second conference on 7 Mar., that for the bill to prevent traitorous correspondence. Somewhat unsurprisingly in April 1705 he was listed as a supporter of the Hanoverian succession.

Rivers played his part in Cheshire at the election of 1705, but his influence, although useful, was by no means crucial to the Whig success. It was a different story in Essex where, as a reliable Whig, he was appointed in 1705 to replace Francis North, 2nd Baron Guilford, as lord lieutenant. He was then responsible for adding 14 new justices to the commission of the peace and for a systematic purge of the county’s deputy lieutenants. The result, not surprisingly, was a crushing victory for the Whig candidates at the 1705 election.

Rivers’ attendance rose to 74 per cent during the 1705-6 session. On 20 Nov. 1705 he was teller for the divisions in the committee of the whole concerning naming the lord treasurer and lord mayor of London as lords justices in the regency bill. On 22 Nov., also in a committee of the whole, he told on the address to the queen on the state of the nation. On 30 Nov. he told on giving further instructions to the committee of the whole considering the regency bill. On 3 Dec. at the third reading of the bill, he then told in the division for reading the rider disabling the lords justices from repealing or altering the test acts for a second time. On 6 Dec. he told in a division of the committee of the whole in favour of the resolution that the Church of England was in no danger and was then named on 7, 11, 14 and 17 Dec. as one of the managers of the conferences on the resolution. He was also named as one of the managers for the conferences on the regency bill on 7, 11 and 19 Feb. 1706. Less controversial issues also occupied his attention, and on 26 Feb. he told in the division about adjourning the House into a committee of the whole to consider the Parton Harbour bill. The respite was short-lived; on 11 Mar. he was named as a manager for the two conferences on the subject of Sir Rowland Gwynne’s^‡ Letter to Thomas Grey, 2nd earl of Stamford. Then on 12 Mar. 1706 he also told on the division to agree the address to the crown concerning Carolina. Given his Whig allegiances and dissenting sympathies it seems likely that he supported the address which complained of legislation akin to the English Tory attempts to outlaw occasional conformity. Rivers may well have had a personal interest in the outcome. His mistress, Elizabeth Johnson, was by birth a member of the Colleton family and her kinsman John Colleton, was one of the proprietors of Carolina. The Colletons had significant property not only in Carolina but also in other American and West Indian colonies.

Rivers was absent from the 1706-7 session, not returning to Parliament until the opening of the next session in November 1707. His absence was caused by his appointment as commander-in-chief of the land forces for an expedition that was originally intended to land in France but which was subsequently diverted to Spain. The expedition offered Rivers the chance he had long wanted to justify his military ambitions and the appointment gratified the Junto, but any expectation of military grandeur proved to be false. The expedition was first delayed by the weather and by Rivers’ illness; then it was marred by confusion in the lines of communication and Rivers’ inability to serve with his fellow officer, Galway. Add. 61310, ff. 156, 174; HMC Bath, i. 154-5.

His relationship with Galway cannot have been improved by the presence of his new son-in-law, James Barry^‡, 4th earl of Barrymore [I], as a brigadier general under Galway’s command. Rivers had been incensed by the secret marriage, without his permission, of his only legitimate daughter Elizabeth to Barrymore in the summer of 1706. A year earlier Rivers had apparently been negotiating a marriage for her with his fellow Whig and Cheshire neighbour, John Crew Offley^‡. Luttrell, Brief Relation, v. 570; vi. 76. Rivers believed Barrymore to be a fortune hunter and probably also suspected him of being a Jacobite sympathizer. Although he had drawn up a will in 1702, in 1706 he composed a new one. The will of 1706 was accompanied by a settlement of his estates which was designed to ensure that the new countess of Barrymore ‘would not be such a fortune as was expected.’ C9/342/25. On both occasions he nominated his powerful Whig friends Charles Howard, 3rd earl of Carlisle, and Baron Somers, as trustees and executors.

Rivers arrived back in England on 20 Apr. 1707. Although he thus escaped public blame for the ensuing defeat at Almanza (and probably thought that events had vindicated his opinion of Galway), Marlborough and Sidney Godolphin, earl of Godophin interpreted matters rather differently. They resented his conduct towards Galway, had little faith in his abilities and decried his ‘base temper.’ Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 754-5, 778, 788-9, 797-9. For his part Rivers was angry and hurt at what he perceived as the favouritism shown to Galway and other officers. Add. 61310, f. 239. Relations between Rivers and Marlborough were further strained when Rivers accused Marlborough of having forced him to sell his regiment at an unfavourable rate in 1703. By the summer of 1707 when the duumvirs reluctantly recognized the need to replace Galway, they still worried about sending Rivers in his place, fearing that ‘he may insist upon some things which would be too unreasonable.’ The duumvirs were relieved to discover that they did not after all have to make use of Rivers’ services, although they recognized that this might cause them political problems. As Marlborough told his duchess, ‘when he is dissatisfied you will find that [the Whigs] will be of his side, for partiality will show itself when party is concerned’. In order to neutralize Rivers, Marlborough eventually suggested that the reduction in the number of troops there meant that the command could go temporarily to a more junior officer and that Rivers should be told that he would get the command if Parliament voted adequate supplies the following winter. The duumvirs were subsequently relieved to learn that the Junto Whigs were ‘pretty indifferent’ to Rivers, although others were still wary of his potential defection to the ‘malcontents’. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp, 767-8, 788-9, 790, 797, 810, 816, 818; Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fc 37, vol. 10, lxvi.

Turning his coat, 1707-12

Rivers returned to Parliament for the 1707-8 session when he was present on just under 60 per cent of sitting days. On 5 Feb. 1708 he acted as teller in favour of putting the House into committee on the bill to complete the union. Then on 7 Feb. he entered a protest at the passage of the bill. A rumour that he was to be appointed commander of the forces in Catalonia and ambassador to King Charles of Spain proved to be inaccurate. Beinecke Lib. OSB mss fc 37, vol. 13, xxxiv. Increasingly disillusioned by his failure to obtain military advancement, by July he had opened communication with Harley, offering to meet him at his house ‘after ’tis dark if it be convenient’. Add. 70256, Rivers to Harley, 15 July 1708. In an attempt to mollify him he was appointed as a Privy Councillor in November 1708 at Marlborough’s instigation.

His attendance over the 1708-9 session rose to 63 per cent. On 21 Jan. 1709 he voted against the right of Scots peers holding British titles to vote in elections for the Scots representative peers, and on 28 Jan. he told on the ability of Scots peers to vote even if they had taken the oaths while incarcerated in Edinburgh Castle. On 6 Apr. he was a teller in a vote in a committee of the whole on the stamp duties fraud bill. On 14 Apr. he told on the Lords amendment to the Commons amendment to the improvement of the union bill. By July 1709, although Rivers was professing more ‘deference and concern’ for the duumvirs than ‘for all the rest of the world together’, they believed that he and Charles Talbot, duke of Shrewsbury, were both deeply involved in the intrigues of Harley and the Tories. Godolphin feared his influence on Somers, declared Rivers to be ‘extremely dangerous, at all times’ and pondered the possibility of giving him a post that would remove him from the country. As late as August 1709 Marlborough remained convinced that finding Rivers a regiment would win him over without ‘money or pension’, though it is clear that Rivers’ demands did include a pension. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1326-8, 1347, 1402. In the course of 1709 Rivers drew up a new will in which, as with his earlier wills, he named Somers and Carlisle as his executors. C9/342/25, answer of Elizabeth Colleton, 14 Dec. 1713. Although this suggests that his alliance with the Whigs was not yet broken, by September 1709 Harley was confident that Rivers and Shrewsbury were ready to join him ‘for the public good’. NLW, Penrice and Margam, L 648.

Rivers attended 69 per cent of sitting days during the 1709-10 session. On 2 Jan. 1710 when the House considered Greenshields’ petition, he told in favour of insisting that Greenshields and the magistrates of Edinburgh attend the House, thus identifying himself with Greenshields’ predominantly Tory supporters. Public confirmation of his new allegiance (and humiliation for the duumvirs) came later that month when he was appointed constable of the Tower in direct contravention of Marlborough’s wishes. On 21 Jan. he told in favour of a failed motion to adjourn the hearing in the case of his fellow friend and fellow renegade Whig, Peterborough, in his long-running attempt to gain possession of the Mordaunt estates that had been lost to Sir John Germaine^‡. During the run up to Sacheverell’s trial in March 1710, Godolphin and Marlborough were convinced that Rivers and his allies Shrewsbury, Charles Seymour, 6th duke of Somerset, John Campbell, 2nd duke of Argyll [S], earl of Greenwich, and Archibald Campbell, earl of Ilay [S] (later 3rd duke of Argyll [S]) were lobbying for an acquittal. Marlborough-Godolphin Corresp. 1434, 1439, 1440. On 28 Feb. Rivers told on the unsuccessful motion that Sacheverell’s counsel be able to defend the first article before the Commons proceed on the second. Although Rivers did vote for a conviction, he was now working very closely with Harley. His increasing reliance on mortgages funded by Tories was also symptomatic of changing political loyalties, though even after the prorogation of 5 Apr. Godolphin still had hopes of buying Rivers off by appointing him commander in Galway’s place. The post was offered to him in June and promptly refused. Ibid. 1519, 1540. Rivers was now openly associated with Harley and he expected to be rewarded, and rewarded well, by Harley for his support. In August 1710, accompanied by Henry Worsley^‡, he went as envoy to Hanover with instructions to reassure the elector about the changes in the ministry. The Marlboroughs reported gleefully that Rivers was so unsuccessful that the elector had denied him the customary present at his departure; others pointed out that by securing support of so prominent a supporter of the Revolution, the new ministry had won something of a propaganda victory ‘and cut off all occasion of their being suspected to be in the interest of the Pretender.’ Ibid. 1650; Add. 72495, ff. 19-20.

In October Shrewsbury warned Harley that ‘the state of the House of Lords is bad’ and that Rivers and the other peers that Harley had recently recruited might cause problems ‘unless her majesty use some means to please them’. Harley was, nevertheless, confident of Rivers’ support. Some consideration was given to appointing Rivers to the commission for the Admiralty, but it was concluded that ‘he would not care for a place of so great attendance.’ HMC Bath, i. 199-200. Back in England by October 1710 Rivers used his influence in Cheshire against the Whigs at the general election. His alliance with Cholmondeley and Shrewsbury was an important factor in the victory there of Charles Cholmondeley^‡. He was then responsible for a remodelling of the deputy lieutenancy, in favour of Harley’s administration.

The new Parliament met in November 1710. Rivers was present for 83 per cent of sitting days. On 9 Jan. 1711 he told against resuming the House after a debate in a committee of the whole on the state of war in Spain, and when the subject was again debated on 12 Jan., he joined in the attack on Galway and the previous ministry. Timberland, ii. 316-29. In February Rivers demanded that Shrewsbury and Harley should both intervene on his behalf with the queen, arguing that ‘if I have no countenance shown me I shall make a sorry figure in the world, considering the part I have acted.’ He stressed the financial hardships he had endured under the previous ministry and threatened to retire into the country unless some reward was forthcoming. Despite earlier signs of financial health, he insisted that he was in genuine financial need. HMC Portland, iv. 662, 658, 662, 682. In January 1712 his appointment as master of the ordnance and as colonel of the Blues was announced. Luttrell, Brief Relation, vi. 711.

Meanwhile, the death of Francis Savage, heir apparent to the earldom, in or about 1710, provided Rivers with a dynastic problem. The new heir to his earldom, his cousin John Savage, was not only a Catholic but an ordained priest. A new settlement had to be made which would tempt John Savage into marriage and a renunciation of his faith but which would also recognize the very real possibility that the earldom would become extinct at John Savage’s death. The settlement was drawn up in June 1711, at which time Rivers also drew up yet another will. His previous wills had favoured his mistress, Elizabeth Colleton, and their daughter Bessy Savage (who later married Frederick Nassau de Zuylestein, 3rd earl of Rochford) to the detriment of his estranged legitimate daughter. Provision for both was now substantially increased and the remainder of the estate was put into trust for the benefit of John Savage but with a stipulation that in the event of a failure to conform to the Church of England or to leave a legitimate male heir, the whole of the residue, after payment of debts, was to be put in trust for Bessy Savage, subject to a proviso that she could not marry without the consent of her mother. C9/345/45. Rivers also left generous legacies to friends, relatives and servants, though not, as Swift later alleged, to ‘about twenty paltry old whores’. Jnl. to Stella ed. Williams, 562-3. It was symptomatic of his changing political allegiances that he appointed Shrewsbury and Harley, now earl of Oxford, as trustees and executors.

During the early part of the next (1711-12) session, Rivers played an important role in rallying support for Oxford’s new administration in the House of Lords. Before the beginning of the session his name appeared on one of Oxford’s canvassing lists and he was in place for the opening of the session on 7 December. On that day he acted as teller on whether to add to the Address, the words that ‘no Peace can be safe or honourable to Great Britain or Europe, if Spain and The West-Indies are to be allotted to any Branch of the House of Bourbon’. Following the ministry’s defeat on that question, on the following day, Rivers, with Arthur Annesley, 5th earl of Anglesey, and Peregrine Osborne, styled marquess of Carmarthen (later 2nd duke of Leeds), was instrumental in provoking an attempt to retrieve the situation, which resulted in an abandoned division. Wentworth Pprs. 222-3. On 19 Oct. he was forecast as likely to support Hamilton’s claims to sit in the Lords as duke of Brandon, and the following day he acted as a teller on that side against the resolution ‘that no Patent of Honour, granted to any Peer of Great Britain, who was a Peer of Scotland at the Time of the Union, can entitle such Peer to sit and vote in Parliament, or to sit upon the Trial of Peers?’. On 2 Jan. 1712 when Somers insisted that the queen’s message to the Lords about the adjournment should go to both Houses at once, it was Rivers, supported by Carmarthen and Nicholas Leke, 4th earl of Scarsdale, who ‘while Lord Somers was speaking went about from one to t’ other of the court sides saying they should not suffer it to be debated.’ Ibid. 239. Between the opening of the session on 7 Dec. 1711 and his last appearance in the House on 29 Mar. 1712 he was present almost every day. A stray reference in May 1712 to his illness confirms the reason for his subsequent absence. Add. 70262, Sir G. Warburton to Oxford, 7 May 1712. He died at Bath on 18 Aug. 1712 and was succeeded by his cousin, John Savage, 5th and last Earl Rivers.

By the last years of his life Rivers had run into substantial debt, though he found it difficult to convince others of his very real financial difficulties. During his final illness he was so desperate for ready money to pay for his journey to Bath that he was prepared ‘to borrow it upon any terms before Saturday.’ HMC Portland, iv. 682; v. 197. The full extent of his problems became apparent soon after his death. The greatest part of his personal estate consisted of a debt owed to him by the deceased Reginald Bretland, which was considered to be irredeemable. C9/345/45. Bretland had long been involved in the financial transactions of both the 3rd and 4th Earls and was probably their land agent. At his death, Rivers owed approximately £23,000, which could not be paid in the absence of payment from the Bretland estate. Those to whom he owed money on mortgages included William Bromley^‡, the Tory Speaker of the House of Commons, Sir Francis Child^‡ and the executors of Sir Roger Cave^‡. Rivers bequeathed a further £27,000 in monetary legacies including the sum of £1,000 to ensure himself a magnificent funeral.

The income from his estate was insufficient to cope with such demands and it became necessary to liquidate a substantial part of the assets. Matters were complicated still further by the 5th Earl’s attempts to gain control of the estate, by allegations that Elizabeth Colleton had exercised undue influence over Rivers, and by accusations that relevant deeds had been destroyed or altered by or at Rivers’ orders in order to deprive his legitimate daughter Elizabeth Savage of lands to which she was entitled under her mother’s marriage settlement. The competing claims of the various heirs led to litigation and the subsequent settlement had to be authorized by a private act of Parliament because some of the parties were underage. 7 Geo. I Private Acts c11.