cr. 18 May 1658 Bar. CROFTS
First sat 3 Sept. 1660; last sat 17 May 1675
b. c.1611, s. and h. of Sir Henry Crofts‡ of Saxham and Elizabeth, da. of Sir Richard Wortley of Wortley, Yorks. educ. unknown. m. (1) c. 1 Apr. 1661, Dorothy (1620-63), da of Sir John Hobart‡, 2nd bt., wid. of Sir John Hele‡ of Clifton Maybank, Dorset, formerly wid. of Hugh Rogers of Conington, Som. and wid. of John Hele‡ esq. of Flanchford, Reigate, Surr.;1 (2) Elizabeth (1618-72), da. of William Spencer†, 2nd Bar. Spencer, wid. of John Craven†, Bar. Craven, formerly wid. of Henry Howard; d.s.p. suc fa. 31 Mar. 1677. d. 11 Sept 1677; will 9 Aug 1676-30 Aug. 1677, pr. 30 Oct. 1677.2
Gent. of the bedchamber 1652-d.; capt. of gds. to Queen Henrietta Maria.
Envoy, Baltic states 1649-52; amb. Poland 1660; envoy, France, 1660.
Associated with: Little Saxham, Suff.; Spring Garden, Westminster.
The Crofts were no more than minor gentry until their acquisition of a seat at Little Saxham in the sixteenth century. Crofts’ father and both his grandfathers sat in the Commons. His brother in law, Sir Edmund Poley‡ sat in the Cavalier Parliament, as did his cousins Sir John‡ and Sir Henry Bennet, the future earl of Arlington, and his kinsmen, Sir John‡ and William Duncombe‡. Crofts was one of those courtiers declared by Parliament in 1642 to be an enemy of the state who should be removed from the court and subsequently he accompanied the royal family into exile. Although he had managed to make an enemy of both George Digby, later 2nd earl of Bristol, and Edward Hyde, later earl of Clarendon, he was sufficiently personable to gain the regard and friendship of Charles II and was one of those credited with having prevented the conversion of Henry, duke of Gloucester, to Catholicism.3 Towards the end of 1658 he was entrusted with the care and upbringing of Charles II’s young son James, the future duke of Monmouth, who initially took the surname Crofts as his own.
Much about Crofts’ political career is obscured by a lack of family papers so that his activities have to be reconstructed through stray references in the correspondence of others. It may never be possible to establish his true political significance but such glimpses as are available suggest that Crofts was a rather more important figure than is usually allowed. He had regular access to the king, he was closely associated with Arlington and was deeply engaged with him in factional court politics; he was also involved in the diplomatic negotiations with the French that may have influenced the signing of the Treaty of Dover.
At the Restoration Crofts did not initially return to England but was sent to inform Louis XIV of the situation and to congratulate him on his marriage to the infanta Maria Theresa. As a result he was unable to take his seat in the House of Lords until 3 Sept. 1660 when he did so without apparent ceremony. He was then present for only 17 of a possible 54 sitting days. His absence from Parliament did not affect his role as courtier and diplomat; he wrote on behalf of the king to compliment Mazarin in October 1660 and over the next six weeks was central to the arrangements to devise appropriate entertainments for the French ambassador extraordinary, Eugene Maurice, comte de Soissons, including escorting him to a private audience with Charles II.4
During the 1661-2 session Crofts was present on just under 35 per cent of sitting days. He was named to the committee for privileges. Then on 14 May, together with John Robartes, 2nd Baron Robartes (later earl of Radnor), he introduced his brother in law Frederick Cornwallis, as Baron Cornwallis. Later that day he was given leave to be absent on the king’s business in France. Nevertheless, he was back in the House on 18 May and then attended fitfully until 26 July. Parliament was adjourned the following day; Crofts did not attend when it reconvened on 20 Nov. and did not return to the House until 7 Dec. 1661. His absence was noted at a call of the House on 25 Nov. when it was noted that he had left a proxy; the proxy was held by John Berkeley, Baron Berkeley of Stratton. Crofts was named to two select committees during the session, that for the admiralty jurisdiction bill on 4 Apr. 1662 and the bill for payment of officers who served in the late troubles on 25 Apr.1662. His main interest in Parliament during this session seems to have been to use privilege of Parliament as a weapon in a dispute over lands claimed by his wife as part of her jointure from her third husband, John Hele.5 He was not listed as present in the House on 6 July 1661 when the House was informed of an action at law against one of Crofts’ tenants and ordered an end to all proceedings; he was present on 15 Apr. 1662 when the House again intervened on his behalf to put a stop to various attempts to prevent his tenants from paying their rents. On 25 Apr. he was named to a select committee (for the bill for money for the officers who served the king in the late troubles). In July 1662, during the long recess, Crofts was serving at sea with Edward Montagu, earl of Sandwich. Both were feared lost in a storm but survived, though observers contrasted Sandwich’s bravery to Crofts’ fear.6 Crofts’ reputation with the French also seems to have been diminishing; in November French diplomats made somewhat barbed comments about ‘Milord Craf’ and were clearly relieved to find that they would be dealing with Charles Gerard, Baron Gerard of Brandon, instead. Gerard, presumably unlike Crofts, ‘recalls better than some the favours he has received’.7
The 1663 session saw Crofts present on 45 per cent of sitting days but apart from a nomination to the committee for privileges on 18 Feb. he has left no mark on the session. Crofts was still in favour at court, receiving a grant in May 1663 in company with James Howard, 3rd earl of Suffolk, and others of a stretch of marsh lands in Kent.8 By July 1663 he appears to have settled the dispute over his wife’s jointure lands.9 In the surviving somewhat unreliable parliamentary list he was forecast as a supporter of Bristol’s attempt to impeach Clarendon. In Crofts’ case the prediction is entirely credible. He and Clarendon disliked and distrusted each other, so much so that when Crofts was appointed to the bedchamber in 1652, it was said that it ‘makes Hyde mad and weary of his life.’10 Crofts was on close terms with George Villiers, 2nd duke of Buckingham, another enemy of Clarendon and also with his more vacillating cousin, Henry Bennet. In the autumn of 1663 he was one of those friends of Bristol who hoped to use the king’s new favourite, Frances Stuart, to regain royal support.11
Crofts’ attendance rose to just over 80 per cent during the short session of 1664. He was named to the committee of privileges on 21 Mar. 1664 and to that for petitions on 23 March. On 22 Mar. he was named to the select committee for the bill on writs of error. He was also present on 20 Aug., a prorogation day.
His attendance fell back to just over 53 per cent during the following, 1664-5, session. His absence from the House on 7 Dec. 1664 was excused by reason of sickness but the following month saw the beginnings of a phase of unaccustomed parliamentary activity, possibly related to his financial negotiations with the Crown. On 18 Jan. 1665 he was named as one of the trustees for the Scottish estates of the young duke of Monmouth. On 28 Jan. a warrant was issued for the payment of £1,100 in part payment of an annual pension of £1,500 that had been awarded to him and his wife in return for the surrender of his £1,000 a year salary as a gentleman of the bedchamber.12 He was named to five select committees (estate bills for Lord Henry Pawlet on 16 Jan, George Morley, bishop of Winchester on 31 Jan. and Sir Robert Carr on 22 Feb. as well as to two navigation bills, for the River Medway on 21 Jan. and the River Avon on 3 Feb. 1665). He also attended on the prorogation day, 21 June, when the only business conducted was the introduction of the newly created Baron Arlington between Crofts and William Brydges, 7th Baron Chandos. During the short session of October 1665 he was present on all but three of the 15 sitting days.
Late in 1665 whilst the court was still at Oxford, Crofts became involved in what Clarendon interpreted (probably correctly) as an attempt to drive a wedge between him and the lord treasurer (and maternal uncle of Lady Crofts), Thomas Wriothesley, 4th earl of Southampton. The death of Edward Montagu in August had created a vacancy for master of the horse to the queen. Edward Montagu’s younger brother Ralph Montagu, later duke of Montagu, who was in the service of Anne Hyde, duchess of York, asked for the post. His candidature was supported by the Yorks who naturally expected Clarendon to exert his influence in Montagu’s favour. Crofts backed a second candidate, Robert Spencer, his wife’s kinsman and Southampton’s nephew. Croft’s ‘passionate and indiscreet’ activity in support of Spencer turned the affair into a show of strength between Southampton and York. As a result of Crofts’ machinations, Montagu’s appointment in December was perceived by Southampton ‘as a designed, contrived attempt to expose him to contempt’. Clarendon found himself suspected of double dealing by all concerned.13 Crofts spent Christmas 1665 at his house in Saxham, entertaining Arlington and Buckingham, but was back in London to attend the House on the prorogation day on 20 Feb. 1666. Clarendon noted in June 1666 that Crofts was in Salisbury and that Arlington was again making ‘a jolly journey’ to visit him there.14
During the 1666-7 session Crofts was present on just over 45 per cent of sitting days. On 18 Sept.1666, together with Arlington, he introduced Thomas Butler, better known by his Irish title as earl of Ossory, as Baron Butler of Moor Park. Crofts was absent on 24 Sept. and so was not named to the committee for privileges which was named that day. He was named to a single select committee, that for the estate bill of Thomas Wentworth, earl of Cleveland, on 24 Oct. 1666. Thereafter he covered an absence from 15 Dec. 1666 to 7 Feb. 1667 inclusive by a proxy to Arlington.
A letter written in May 1667, during the long recess, provides rare insight into Crofts’ political views. Together with Algernon Percy, 4th earl of Northumberland, and Henry Pierrepont, marquess of Dorchester, he expressed his fears about the military situation and the prospects for a Dutch invasion, specifically adding his concern about a government in which ‘matters went he knows not how, such men appointed over the treasury, such little preparation for resistance and such gaiety appearing at court.’15 Scattered reports indicate that he was taken ill at or shortly after this time and that even in mid July his gout was so bad that he was unable to travel. By August he had recovered but he missed the first two days of the 1667-9 session, taking his seat on 14 Oct. 1667.16 He was then present for about 50 per cent of sitting days, including those on which the impeachment of Clarendon was debated, until 25 Nov. but what part he played in those debates is unknown. His proxy, again in favour of Arlington, was registered on 28 Nov. and was not vacated until he returned to the House on 11 Feb. the following year; he was then present for just under 37 per cent of the remaining sitting days that year. He was in the House on 10 Mar. 1668 to bring a complaint of privilege regarding the arrest of one of his servants but on 16 Mar. was given permission to retire into the country for his health. He attended on 17 Mar. but was then absent until 23 April. His last attendance of the session was on 9 May 1668. He then retired to Saxham where he entertained the king during his visit to Newmarket later that month.17
Despite an absence of evidence by which to establish and judge the extent of Crofts’ influence, it seems likely that his position as a gentleman of the bedchamber and his diplomatic experience made him an important figure at court; Colbert, the French ambassador, certainly believed him to be so. In 1669, in the wake of the triple alliance, Crofts and Arlington were closely involved in seeking a rapprochement with France. In January 1669 Colbert, the French ambassador, reported that Crofts had drawn him aside to emphasize that Arlington,
knew quite well that there was nothing more advantageous to the king and the realm of England, or even more agreeable to his interests and his personal satisfaction than the union I had proposed, that he hoped to make it succeed, and that I could be assured that he would work sincerely for it.
Crofts also indicated that it was Arlington rather than Buckingham who enjoyed the king’s full confidence. By April he had backtracked, saying that neither Buckingham nor Arlington were ‘bold enough to undertake anything significant towards the glory and service of the king, as the alliance with your majesty [Louis XIV] would be, not knowing how it would be received by Parliament’. According to Crofts both ministers recommended a dissolution and fresh elections the result of which would be to bind England even more closely into a Protestant alliance. He recommended instead that the French should deal direct with Charles II and offer him money with the implicit suggestion that he persevere with his existing Parliament. The suggestion appears to presage the Secret Treaty of Dover signed the following year but at the time Colbert was uncertain whether to take Crofts’ words at face value, or whether it was part of a ploy to bolster Arlington’s position by creating trouble between the French and Buckingham.18
Crofts did not attend the brief session of autumn 1669 at all; on 26 Oct., shortly after the beginning of the session, he was excused on grounds of illness. He was present on just over 40 per cent of sitting days in the 1670-1 session. His absence on the first day of the session meant that he was not named to the committee for privileges but he was named to five select committees. On 14 Feb. 1671, he was named, as were almost all those listed as present that day, to the committee to investigate the attempt to assassinate James Butler, duke of Ormond. He registered a proxy on 3 Mar. to Arlington which was vacated on his return to the House on 17 April.
On 13 Feb. 1673, shortly after the opening of the new session, he was excused attendance on grounds of illness. He took his seat on 18 Mar.; all eight of his attendances that session were concentrated in the following weeks. He did not attend the brief second session of the year at all, although Colbert’s despatches make it clear that he was in London and in attendance at court.19 The short 1674 session saw him present on just under 58 per cent of sitting days during which he was named to two select committees. He took the oath of allegiance on 13 Jan. 1674.
Early in 1675 Crofts was engaged in negotiations for the marriage of his niece Judith Poley, to Henry Jermyn, the future earl of Dover. Crofts was said to have contributed £8,000 for her dowry, but his will shows that the Poleys paid £4,000 and that Crofts engaged that the remaining £4,000 would be paid from his estate after his decease.20 The spring 1675 session opened on 13 April. Crofts did not attend until 26 Apr. and was then present for just 12 days. He did not attend Parliament again. He was excused at a call of the House on 10 Nov. 1675, covering his absence for that, the second session of the year, as well as the next (1677) session with a proxy to Louis de Duras, Baron Duras (later 2nd earl of Feversham). In January 1677 he was so ill that there were rumours that he had died, but he lingered for several more months before dying in September 1677. His will made generous provision for his servants and kinswomen as well as for the poor of Little Saxham. He also left a substantial sum to defray the expenses of a funeral suitable to his quality. In order to ensure that the £4,000 owed to Jermyn was paid he appointed Jermyn ‘and with his approbation’ William Duncombe, Henry Poley and Martin Folkes, as executors. At his death his title was extinguished for lack of a direct male heir; his estates passed to his cousin, also named William Crofts‡.
R.P.- 1 HP Commons 1660-90, ii. 521.
- 2 TNA, PROB 11/354.
- 3 CCSP, ii. 430.
- 4 TNA, PRO 31/3/107, pp. 178, 209; 108, pp. 1, 2, 7, 54-55.
- 5 Bodl. Tanner, 41, ff. 178, 179.
- 6 PRO 31/3/110, pp. 197-99; Pepys Diary, iii. 149.
- 7 TNA, PRO 31/3/110, p. 384.
- 8 CSP Dom. 1663-4, p. 157.
- 9 Bodl. Tanner, 46, f. 78.
- 10 CCSP, ii. 130.
- 11 Seaward, Cavalier Parlt. p. 231.
- 12 CSP Dom. 1664-5, pp. 173, 182.
- 13 Clarendon, Life (1761), iii. 555-63.
- 14 Bodl. Carte 46, f. 235; 47, f. 113.
- 15 Bodl. ms North c.4, ff. 164-5.
- 16 Add. 75376, ff. 6-9, 19-20; Add. 75366, Mr Hervey, to Sir G. Savile.
- 17 Verney ms mic. M636/22, Sir R. to E. Verney, 21 May 1668; Pepys Diary, ix. 336.
- 18 TNA, PRO 31/3/121/3/121, pp. 19-21; 122, pp. 9-10.
- 19 TNA, PRO 31/3/121/3/129, pp. 53-58.
- 20 Verney ms mic. M636/28, Sir R. to E. Verney, 15 Feb. 1675.