MITFORD, Robert (1612-74), of Mitford, Northumb.

The Mitfords of Mitford were one of Northumberland’s oldest families, although the pedigree given at the 1615 visitation tracing their ancestry back to one Sir John Mitford ‘temp. William Conq.’ has been dismissed as a ‘concoction of some venal herald’.21Vis. Northumb. ed. J. Foster, 86; C.H.H. Blair, ‘Members of Parl. for Northumb.’, Arch. Ael. ser. 4, xi. 55. The true founder of the family’s fortunes was the Sir John Mitford† who sat for Northumberland in 13 Parliaments between 1372 and 1402. He died in 1409, seized of the manor of Molesden and a capital messuage at Mitford, and has been described as ‘one of the most diligent and successful administrators to represent Northumberland in the Middle Ages’.22Blair, ‘Members of Parl. for Northumb.’, 55; HP Commons 1386-1421. Apart from Sir John’s son William†, who sat for Northumberland on four occasions between 1413 and 1421, Robert Mitford† was the next member of the family to serve at Westminster and should not be confused with his contemporaries, Robert Mitford of Seghill (sheriff of Northumberland in 1640) or the Newcastle-upon-Tyne merchant of the same name.23Hist. Northumb. ix. 65-8; HP Commons 1386-1421.

The fact that there was no shortage of Robert Mitfords in mid-seventeenth century Northumberland and County Durham makes it even more difficult to piece together the fragmentary evidence we possess about the MP’s life. Following the death of his father in 1613, Mitford’s wardship was purchased by his grandfather, who bequeathed it in his will of 1625 to his friend Humphrey Wharton and his son-in-law. At some point in the late 1620s or early 1630s, Mitford married Wharton’s daughter and then received a gentleman’s education at Cambridge and the inns of court.24WARD9/162, f. 186v; Wills and Inventories from the Durham Registry ed. Greenwell, 243. Thereafter, however, he becomes harder to pin down. He would seem a likely candidate for the Robert Mitford who was elected bailiff for Morpeth – which lay just a few miles from Mitford – in 1636, were it not for the fact that there was a merchant of the same name living in the borough during this period.25Procs. of the Soc. of Antiquaries of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, ser. 3, ix. 270, 273. The Captain ‘Robert Midfore’ in Henry Percy’s* Northumberland militia regiment during the first bishops’ war could have been the gentleman from Seghill rather than the future MP – and the same may also have been true of the ‘Robert Mitford esq.’ who served as sheriff of Northumberland in 1639-40.26E351/292; Coventry Docquets, 369.

Very little is known about Mitford during the 1640s. He was added to the Northumberland commission of peace early in 1642 (but lost his place on the bench when a new liber pacis was issued early in 1650).27C231/5, p. 508; SP16/498/103, f. 192v. In October 1643, he was described as politically inactive.28SP16/498/103, f. 192v. At some point before 1647, he became bound with his brother-in-law Thomas Wharton and the Yorkshire royalist Major Norton* for repayment of a loan of £100.29C6/4/133. But it is not clear when or for what purpose this debt was contracted.

Whether or not Mitford had supported Parliament in the civil war, he was evidently seen as politically reliable by the early 1650s, when he was appointed sheriff of Northumberland and restored to the county bench.30List of Sheriffs, 100; C231/6, p. 251. ‘Honest Mr. Mitford, the high sheriff of Northumberland’ was praised in the London press in September 1651 for raising 1,000 horse to guard the county against incursion by the Scottish Engagers: ‘this shows his good affections to this Commonwealth’.31Perfect Diurnall no. 93 (15-22 Sept. 1651), 1323 (E.787.22). He was also part of the syndicate headed by the governor of the four northern counties under the commonwealth, Sir Arthur Hesilrige*, that purchased the castle and adjoining property in Newcastle from the trustees for the sale of crown lands in 1651.32C54/3571/14. The only clue as to his religious sympathies is his patronage of the Congregationalist minister Thomas Binlowes, whom he presented to the vicarage of Mitford at some point in the early 1650s. Binlowes seems to have established a godly congregation in the parish, excluding those who were of a ‘different judgement ... in some points of religion’.33C6/143/126; Calamy Revised, 47.

Though favoured by the Rump, Mitford seems to have had little trouble accommodating himself to the protectorate, signing the Northumberland electoral indenture returning William and Robert Fenwicke to the first Cromwellian Parliament in 1654.34Northumb. RO, ZAN M17/38. In the elections to Richard Cromwell’s Parliament of 1659, Mitford was returned for Morpeth.35Supra, ‘Morpeth’. He probably owed his return to the strength of his proprietorial interest as the owner of Newminster Abbey and other lands in and around the borough. Indeed, according to one contemporary, he was ‘of great power and authority in those parts’.36C6/143/126. Little can be deduced from his appointments in the House, for he received only one – to the committee of privileges, on 28 January.37CJ vii. 594b. In debate, however, he emerges as a firm supporter of the protectoral government. When it was disclosed on 5 February 1659 that the commonwealthsman Edmund Ludlowe II had taken his seat in the House without having subscribed the oath of loyalty to the protector, Mitford was among those Members who opposed calls from Ludlowe’s allies that the matter be referred to a committee or put off until another day. ‘Most [MPs] have taken it and all should’, he declared, ‘for twenty [such as Ludlowe] may come in on Monday if you pass [over] this’.38Burton’s Dairy, iii. 72. Taking the oath was evidently as important for Mitford as not taking it was for Ludlowe. In a debate three days later (8 Feb.) on the bill for recognizing Richard Cromwell as protector, he claimed that he was moved to serve and speak in the House out of the ‘integrity of my conscience and an oath upon me religiously done’.39Burton’s Dairy, iii. 121. As to the bill itself, he professed to have only two concerns: that it make provision for the protector’s safety and for that of the nation against the threat of Dutch attack. He urged that the bill be speedily passed in order not to retard the navy’s preparations. His support for the protectoral government was apparently untainted by any crypto-royalist sympathies on his part, for on 12 February, in a debate on the punishment of pro-Cromwellian Members with royalist pasts, he moved that Robert Danvers alias Villiers should be sent to the Tower.40Burton’s Dairy, iii. 251.

Mitford made little or no impact upon public affairs after February 1659, and by the end of 1660 he had been removed from all local commissions. He died in the summer of 1674 and was buried at Mitford on 28 June.41Durham UL, DPR/I/1/1674/M10/2; Hodgson, Northumb. pt. 3, i. 46. In his will, he made bequests totalling £1,400 and charged his estate with an annuity of £20. Several of his descendants through his third son, John Mitford, sat for west country constituencies in the Napoleonic era.42Hodgson, Northumb. pt. 3, i. 47; HP Commons 1754-1790, ‘John Mitford’; ‘William Mitford’.